Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

[plunker]

robinessex said:

plunker said:

robinessex said:

plunker said:

PRTVR said:

durbster said:

PRTVR said:

What is also amazing is that all it does is contribute a small addition to a trace gas in the atmosphere, that is necessary for photosynthesis in plant which sustains life on earth,
yikes indeed.

"all it does"

What makes you think "a small addition to a trace gas in the atmosphere" wouldn't have a big effect? You don't accept the greenhouse effect exists?

What makes you think it will have a big effect ? I accept the green house effect, it's clearly visible on a cold winters night with cloud cover as opposed to a night with a clear sky, my difference of opinion is about the effect of a trace gas to the total delay in cooling ,first I don't think it's measurable with all the variables in the atmosphere and second it is not in a large enough quantity to have anything but a minute effect, remember correlation is not causation unless you understand the full working of the system, something we do not.

Edit to add sorry for the delay getting back to you but I was busy planting out cactus but the snow was making it difficult.

Edited by PRTVR on Wednesday 26th April 22:11

Your opinion is completely worthless as it's based on crude homespun reasoning and contrary to the science of atmospheric physics. You need to properly learn the scientific basis for why our CO2 emissions are thought to be a significant enhancement of the greenhouse effect (not an easy task for a layman), or (like me), realise that you have no business holding a contrary view on it.

Edited by plunker on Thursday 27th April 10:19

Glad you used the word 'thought' in that paragraph. No proof exists that the minuscule amount of a perfectly natural gas called CO2 humans produce does anything adverse at all.

The size of our CO2 emissions needs to be weighed in terms of it's greenhouse effect potential not against the whole bulk of the atmosphere. Your reasoning is unscientific and worthless.

Nothing to do with being "unscientific and worthless". Again, no proof exists that the minuscule amount of a perfectly natural gas called CO2 humans produce does anything adverse at all.

It's got everytning to do with it. The scientific basis for why CO2 is a significant enhancement to the greenhouse effect is long established. You need to knock it over scientifically - just sitting on your arse demanding 'proof' and saying how small CO2 is over and over is easily dismissable as crude idealogical denialism similar to the faux 'scientific' arguments of creationists against evolution.

[Silver Smudger]

durbster said:

Silver Smudger said:

This comparison to an imaginary event does not actually tell me anything useful about mankind's impact on the planet, at all - What am I missing?

If there were a fire significantly larger than the continent of Africa, do you think people would be likely to conclude that it was having no effect on the planet's atmosphere?

There is not a fire the size of Africa

Man's CO2 emissions exist, but they are not a fire the size of Africa

This article is only saying that if we were to emit this amount of CO2 by burning forests instead of fossil fuel, it would need to be a big fire (duh!)

This particular article tells me nothing about what effect man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 is actually having

This is therefore just a scare tactic

[PRTVR]

plunker said:

PRTVR said:

durbster said:

PRTVR said:

What is also amazing is that all it does is contribute a small addition to a trace gas in the atmosphere, that is necessary for photosynthesis in plant which sustains life on earth,
yikes indeed.

"all it does"

What makes you think "a small addition to a trace gas in the atmosphere" wouldn't have a big effect? You don't accept the greenhouse effect exists?

What makes you think it will have a big effect ? I accept the green house effect, it's clearly visible on a cold winters night with cloud cover as opposed to a night with a clear sky, my difference of opinion is about the effect of a trace gas to the total delay in cooling ,first I don't think it's measurable with all the variables in the atmosphere and second it is not in a large enough quantity to have anything but a minute effect, remember correlation is not causation unless you understand the full working of the system, something we do not.

Edit to add sorry for the delay getting back to you but I was busy planting out cactus but the snow was making it difficult.

Edited by PRTVR on Wednesday 26th April 22:11

Your opinion is completely worthless as it's based on crude homespun reasoning and contrary to the science of atmospheric physics. You need to either properly learn the scientific basis for why our CO2 emissions are thought to be a significant enhancement of the greenhouse effect (not an easy task for a layman), or (like me), realise that you have no business holding a contrary view on it.

Edited by plunker on Thursday 27th April 10:19

Edited by plunker on Thursday 27th April 10:23

Oh sorry didn't realise I was unworthy to have an opinion on the subject, we can't have alternative ideas can we ? There is no certainties in climate change, the whole thing is full of maybe probably and other such vague wording, they are so unsure of what is happening that it has to be kept vague, this is not science that is settled, it's bordering on guess work with a theme, you may choose to believe I do not.

[durbster]

Silver Smudger said:

There is not a fire the size of Africa

Man's CO2 emissions exist, but they are not a fire the size of Africa

This article is only saying that if we were to emit this amount of CO2 by burning forests instead of fossil fuel, it would need to be a big fire (duh!)

This particular article tells me nothing about what effect man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 is actually having

You're still missing the point. It's a metaphor.

Some people can justify denying AGW to themselves because they can't put the effects of burning fossil fuels in a context they understand.

Silver Smudger said:

This is therefore just a scare tactic

Exactly!

[durbster]

PRTVR said:

There is no certainties in climate change, the whole thing is full of maybe probably and other such vague wording, they are so unsure of what is happening that it has to be kept vague

Good grief, you've sunk to the robinessex level of argument!

There are no certainties in any field of science. That's how it works.

[plunker]

Silver Smudger said:

durbster said:

Silver Smudger said:

This comparison to an imaginary event does not actually tell me anything useful about mankind's impact on the planet, at all - What am I missing?

If there were a fire significantly larger than the continent of Africa, do you think people would be likely to conclude that it was having no effect on the planet's atmosphere?

There is not a fire the size of Africa

Man's CO2 emissions exist, but they are not a fire the size of Africa

This article is only saying that if we were to emit this amount of CO2 by burning forests instead of fossil fuel, it would need to be a big fire (duh!)

This particular article tells me nothing about what effect man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 is actually having

This is therefore just a scare tactic

Reality has a 'scary' bias sometimes - we shield children from them but we're supposedly adults here.

[Silver Smudger]

durbster said:

Silver Smudger said:

There is not a fire the size of Africa

Man's CO2 emissions exist, but they are not a fire the size of Africa

This article is only saying that if we were to emit this amount of CO2 by burning forests instead of fossil fuel, it would need to be a big fire (duh!)

This particular article tells me nothing about what effect man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 is actually having

You're still missing the point. It's a metaphor.

Some people can justify denying AGW to themselves because they can't put the effects of burning fossil fuels in a context they understand.

Silver Smudger said:

This is therefore just a scare tactic

Exactly!

plunker said:

Reality has a 'scary' bias sometimes - we shield children from them but we're supposedly adults here.

There is no place in science for scary bias or metaphor - Publishing this imprecise comparison is tabloid-worthy dramatising and exaggerating for rhetorical effect - So politics at best, at worst just propaganda, which is highly frustrating, when what we need is scientific fact.

especially from an outfit that calls themselves 'Scientific' American

[PRTVR]

durbster said:

PRTVR said:

There is no certainties in climate change, the whole thing is full of maybe probably and other such vague wording, they are so unsure of what is happening that it has to be kept vague

Good grief, you've sunk to the robinessex level of argument!

There are no certainties in any field of science. That's how it works.

Agreed but AGW fails even at the level of logic and reason, if you poured a kettle of hot water into the sea will it heat up the sea ? Yes it will , if I told you it would melt the ice caps what would your answer be ?, It can't, but you expect me to believe a small addition to a naturally occurring inert gas can have a similar effect, I am also interested how we are supposed to limit the emissions from volcanic activity.
my understanding is that CO2 effects are swamped by H2O effects that are readily seen.

[robinessex]

plunker said:

robinessex said:

plunker said:

robinessex said:

plunker said:

PRTVR said:

durbster said:

PRTVR said:

What is also amazing is that all it does is contribute a small addition to a trace gas in the atmosphere, that is necessary for photosynthesis in plant which sustains life on earth,
yikes indeed.

"all it does"

What makes you think "a small addition to a trace gas in the atmosphere" wouldn't have a big effect? You don't accept the greenhouse effect exists?

What makes you think it will have a big effect ? I accept the green house effect, it's clearly visible on a cold winters night with cloud cover as opposed to a night with a clear sky, my difference of opinion is about the effect of a trace gas to the total delay in cooling ,first I don't think it's measurable with all the variables in the atmosphere and second it is not in a large enough quantity to have anything but a minute effect, remember correlation is not causation unless you understand the full working of the system, something we do not.

Edit to add sorry for the delay getting back to you but I was busy planting out cactus but the snow was making it difficult.

Edited by PRTVR on Wednesday 26th April 22:11

Your opinion is completely worthless as it's based on crude homespun reasoning and contrary to the science of atmospheric physics. You need to properly learn the scientific basis for why our CO2 emissions are thought to be a significant enhancement of the greenhouse effect (not an easy task for a layman), or (like me), realise that you have no business holding a contrary view on it.

Edited by plunker on Thursday 27th April 10:19

Glad you used the word 'thought' in that paragraph. No proof exists that the minuscule amount of a perfectly natural gas called CO2 humans produce does anything adverse at all.

The size of our CO2 emissions needs to be weighed in terms of it's greenhouse effect potential not against the whole bulk of the atmosphere. Your reasoning is unscientific and worthless.

Nothing to do with being "unscientific and worthless". Again, no proof exists that the minuscule amount of a perfectly natural gas called CO2 humans produce does anything adverse at all.

It's got everytning to do with it. The scientific basis for why CO2 is a significant enhancement to the greenhouse effect is long established. You need to knock it over scientifically - just sitting on your arse demanding 'proof' and saying how small CO2 is over and over is easily dismissable as crude idealogical denialism similar to the faux 'scientific' arguments of creationists against evolution.

Post the proof here then

[robinessex]

durbster said:

PRTVR said:

There is no certainties in climate change, the whole thing is full of maybe probably and other such vague wording, they are so unsure of what is happening that it has to be kept vague

Good grief, you've sunk to the robinessex level of argument!

There are no certainties in any field of science. That's how it works.

Great. So if we're not certain, lets spend $trillions on a guess. PS. I thought the science was settled a while ago! Or did I misread that then?

[DapperDanMan]

PRTVR said:

durbster said:

PRTVR said:

There is no certainties in climate change, the whole thing is full of maybe probably and other such vague wording, they are so unsure of what is happening that it has to be kept vague

Good grief, you've sunk to the robinessex level of argument!

There are no certainties in any field of science. That's how it works.

Agreed but AGW fails even at the level of logic and reason, if you poured a kettle of hot water into the sea will it heat up the sea ? Yes it will , if I told you it would melt the ice caps what would your answer be ?, It can't, but you expect me to believe a small addition to a naturally occurring inert gas can have a similar effect, I am also interested how we are supposed to limit the emissions from volcanic activity.
my understanding is that CO2 effects are swamped by H2O effects that are readily seen.

You are comparing apples and oranges though aren't you? Your example is comparing heat energy of water with IR absorption of CO2.

The CO2 level in itself does not warm the climate it is the effect of trapping the radiated IR and re emitting it that does.

We can do nothing about volcanic activity but can do everything about our activity. Given the will we can produce all the energy we need from none fossil fuel sources. We have the ability now to do it but we lack the will in part due to nay sayers always looking to be right against all the evidence whilst producing no evidence of their own - just splitting hairs.

[durbster]

Silver Smudger said:

There is no place in science for scary bias or metaphor - Publishing this imprecise comparison is tabloid-worthy dramatising and exaggerating for rhetorical effect - So politics at best, at worst just propaganda, which is highly frustrating, when what we need is scientific fact.

especially from an outfit that calls themselves 'Scientific' American

The scientific facts are available for anyone to view (including on Scientific American), and have been for years. There are millions of scientific facts about AGW available on Google Scholar.

The science and data has been shared and shown and presented and graphed and explained endlessly, but the existence of these threads is proof that just stating scientific facts is not enough.

Sometimes people need to be shown another way of looking at something before they understand it.

[durbster]

robinessex said:

Great. So if we're not certain, lets spend $trillions on a guess.

Can you name any Government policies that are not based on speculation?

[Jinx]

durbster said:

The scientific facts are available for anyone to view (including on Scientific American), and have been for years. There are millions of scientific facts about AGW available on Google Scholar.

The science and data has been shared and shown and presented and graphed and explained endlessly, but the existence of these threads is proof that just stating scientific facts is not enough.

Sometimes people need to be shown another way of looking at something before they understand it.

For there to be any fear from the "facts" about CO2 it needs positive feedback from water vapor. This has not been shown/proven and they don't even know the sign of the forcing from clouds...... So again why is so much money being thrown away to a highly probable non-problem?

[DapperDanMan]

robinessex said:

durbster said:

PRTVR said:

There is no certainties in climate change, the whole thing is full of maybe probably and other such vague wording, they are so unsure of what is happening that it has to be kept vague

Good grief, you've sunk to the robinessex level of argument!

There are no certainties in any field of science. That's how it works.

Great. So if we're not certain, lets spend $trillions on a guess. PS. I thought the science was settled a while ago! Or did I misread that then?

It isn't a guess though is it. You are the one doing the guessing and with fingers crossed hoping you are correct. Of course if you're not you'll be long dead so it doesn't matter does it. Just be left for future generations to clean up our mess.

All you are doing is splitting hairs about what Al Gore said in '97. Science moves on and what were once proven are replaced with more accurate theory and proof (Newton and Einstein) but we get along fine with Newton for most purposes.

Also it isn't you spending the money is it and where do the trillions come into it? A move towards renewables is well under way and could be done quicker if we had the will, did you notice that we didn't use coal for electricity production last week? It is a gradual change which will take decades but it is happening and all the denial in the world hasn't stopped it.

[plunker]

PRTVR said:

plunker said:

PRTVR said:

durbster said:

PRTVR said:

What is also amazing is that all it does is contribute a small addition to a trace gas in the atmosphere, that is necessary for photosynthesis in plant which sustains life on earth,
yikes indeed.

"all it does"

What makes you think "a small addition to a trace gas in the atmosphere" wouldn't have a big effect? You don't accept the greenhouse effect exists?

What makes you think it will have a big effect ? I accept the green house effect, it's clearly visible on a cold winters night with cloud cover as opposed to a night with a clear sky, my difference of opinion is about the effect of a trace gas to the total delay in cooling ,first I don't think it's measurable with all the variables in the atmosphere and second it is not in a large enough quantity to have anything but a minute effect, remember correlation is not causation unless you understand the full working of the system, something we do not.

Edit to add sorry for the delay getting back to you but I was busy planting out cactus but the snow was making it difficult.

Edited by PRTVR on Wednesday 26th April 22:11

Your opinion is completely worthless as it's based on crude homespun reasoning and contrary to the science of atmospheric physics. You need to either properly learn the scientific basis for why our CO2 emissions are thought to be a significant enhancement of the greenhouse effect (not an easy task for a layman), or (like me), realise that you have no business holding a contrary view on it.

Edited by plunker on Thursday 27th April 10:19

Edited by plunker on Thursday 27th April 10:23

Oh sorry didn't realise I was unworthy to have an opinion on the subject, we can't have alternative ideas can we ? There is no certainties in climate change, the whole thing is full of maybe probably and other such vague wording, they are so unsure of what is happening that it has to be kept vague, this is not science that is settled, it's bordering on guess work with a theme, you may choose to believe I do not.

What I believe is you don't have sufficiently competant understanding of the fundamental basis for AGW to have any business holding a contrary view. To hold the view that increases in a trace gas can't have a significant effect it's beholding on you to understand the established science that says it does so you can critique it from an informed position, otherwise it's just worthless uninformed opinion of a layman, easy to ignore. The only thing interesting about your oft repeated homespun 'ideas' is the irrationality of your confidence in them in the face of so much science.

[plunker]

robinessex said:

plunker said:

robinessex said:

plunker said:

robinessex said:

plunker said:

PRTVR said:

durbster said:

PRTVR said:

What is also amazing is that all it does is contribute a small addition to a trace gas in the atmosphere, that is necessary for photosynthesis in plant which sustains life on earth,
yikes indeed.

"all it does"

What makes you think "a small addition to a trace gas in the atmosphere" wouldn't have a big effect? You don't accept the greenhouse effect exists?

What makes you think it will have a big effect ? I accept the green house effect, it's clearly visible on a cold winters night with cloud cover as opposed to a night with a clear sky, my difference of opinion is about the effect of a trace gas to the total delay in cooling ,first I don't think it's measurable with all the variables in the atmosphere and second it is not in a large enough quantity to have anything but a minute effect, remember correlation is not causation unless you understand the full working of the system, something we do not.

Edit to add sorry for the delay getting back to you but I was busy planting out cactus but the snow was making it difficult.

Edited by PRTVR on Wednesday 26th April 22:11

Your opinion is completely worthless as it's based on crude homespun reasoning and contrary to the science of atmospheric physics. You need to properly learn the scientific basis for why our CO2 emissions are thought to be a significant enhancement of the greenhouse effect (not an easy task for a layman), or (like me), realise that you have no business holding a contrary view on it.

Edited by plunker on Thursday 27th April 10:19

Glad you used the word 'thought' in that paragraph. No proof exists that the minuscule amount of a perfectly natural gas called CO2 humans produce does anything adverse at all.

The size of our CO2 emissions needs to be weighed in terms of it's greenhouse effect potential not against the whole bulk of the atmosphere. Your reasoning is unscientific and worthless.

Nothing to do with being "unscientific and worthless". Again, no proof exists that the minuscule amount of a perfectly natural gas called CO2 humans produce does anything adverse at all.

It's got everytning to do with it. The scientific basis for why CO2 is a significant enhancement to the greenhouse effect is long established. You need to knock it over scientifically - just sitting on your arse demanding 'proof' and saying how small CO2 is over and over is easily dismissable as crude idealogical denialism similar to the faux 'scientific' arguments of creationists against evolution.

Post the proof here then

Like I said - all you've got is lazy demands for proof. It's for you to knock the established science over, but that would require understanding it first so not much chance of that.

[Jinx]

plunker said:

What I believe is you don't have sufficiently competant understanding of the fundamental basis for AGW to have any business holding a contrary view. To hold the view that increases in a trace gas can't have a significant effect it's beholding on you to understand the established science that says it does so you can critique it from an informed position, otherwise it's just worthless uninformed opinion of a layman, easy to ignore. The only thing interesting about your oft repeated homespun 'ideas' is the irrationality of your confidence in them in the face of so much science.

I'm sure the German physicists of Einstein's time could easily ignore the worthless opinion of a patent clerk. Doesn't make them correct.
Seriously though plunks - why are you falling for the same old snake-oil -"only the experts" can understand it gumpf?
Heck homeopathy insists trace substances can have mighty effects!

[hairykrishna]

PRTVR said:

Oh sorry didn't realise I was unworthy to have an opinion on the subject, we can't have alternative ideas can we ?

Opinions uninformed by data are fairly worthless.

My opinion is that our fossil fuel usage is causing a temperature rise. Backing this up I see an observed rise in CO2 concentrations. Isotope ratios and simple mass calculations tell me this comes from us burning fossil fuels. About a century of theoretical physics backed up by rigorous measurements, both in the lab and directly in the atmosphere, tells me that this rise significantly changes the atmospheric IR absorption. Calculations tell me that this should lead to a rise in surface temperature. The instrumental temperature record tells me that the surface temperature is rising.

Where does your opinion come from?

[hairykrishna]

Jinx said:

I'm sure the German physicists of Einstein's time could easily ignore the worthless opinion of a patent clerk. Doesn't make them correct.
Seriously though plunks - why are you falling for the same old snake-oil -"only the experts" can understand it gumpf?
Heck homeopathy insists trace substances can have mighty effects!

I don't think he said that 'only experts can understand it' though, did he? What he's saying is that some of the criticisms voiced on this thread show that a lot of posters don't understand enough about the thing they're arguing against to have an opinion that's worth listening to.