Sheesh. Does the substance of his argument mean anything to you?
Lol, no. As I said, your arguments didn’t stand up to mild questioning.
Not when it’s so easily torn to shreds, no.
And again, you attempt to claim you managed to poke any holes in my arguments. You’re just so cute!
Here’s the thing: if I were to summarize the 100 page “Global Climate Projection” chapter of the 3rd IPCC assessment report into a single paragraph, I would have to make a vast number of simplifying assumptions. I couldn’t possibly put in enough disclaimers to write a paragraph that couldn’t be misinterpreted, and I couldn’t possibly write a paragraph that would be an accurate summary of the work.
That wouldn’t be a problem if I were simply describing the general state of science to somebody, but that’s not what I’m doing. I’m going to make a mistake, and you’re going to latch onto it and come back with a series of stupidly simplistic “yes or no” questions that only tangentially address the actual science. I’m not playing that game.
Then why not adress the substance of his point, rather than simply dimissing it on the basis of who he is?
That’s nonsense.
But here’s a different game for you:
The year is 2080. Although CO2 levels are significantly higher than they were in 2008, global temperature anomaly has averaged X for the last 10 or 20 years, leading you to concede that the catastrophic AGW theory was dead wrong; and all those scientists who were so confident were dead wrong.
What is X?
Or is that too simple a question?
Why in the (increasingly warm) world would I want to waste time repeating what has already been covered quite well in the link that I provided?
It’s a disingenuous question.
A hypothesis may only be disproved if an argument it is contingent on is disproved (theories based on the luminiferous ether were disproved by demonstration there was no ether), or if another hypothesis is a better fit for the data. That question does neither.
Maybe because your link doesn’t adress the argument I quoted at all?
It’s an asinine question.
First off, science isn’t going to stand still for 70 years, so our understanding of radiative forcing and greenhouse dynamics is going to be very different than it is today. Aside from that, there’s not enough information in your question to answer it, even with the current state of the art.
You say CO2 levels are “significantly higher” - how significant? What was the rate of increase? What has the history of volcanism looked like over the last 70 years? Any nuclear exchanges? What about the ice caps?
How is the temperature anomaly you refer to distributed globally? Is it near the poles, where the environment is much more sensitive to changes and feedbacks, or is it near the equator? Is it caused by an increased intensity in both summer highs and winter lows, with summer strengthening faster, or asre winter and summer temperatures both rising? Is it primarily a northern hemisphere phenomenon, southern hemisphere, or global?
You only think it’s a simple reasonable question because you don’t understand any of the science.
If that led me to concede that catastrophic AGW theory was dead wrong, I’d be pretty fucking stupid. A 10-20 year timeframe,especially at the end of some 50 year period for which you have provide no metrics and no hypothetical measures taken to improve the situation, etc., doesn’t tell us anything. Now, if you want to expand that a bit, and say it’s averaged X over the entire 72 years, I’ll happily give my own personal value for X that might get me to start doubting (that’s still an awfully short time frame, but I’d certainly raise an eyebrow). How does 0.0 sound to you?
A variable provided by you in support of a stupid argument.
No, that was actually pretty easy.
700ppm - I took that from the IPCC’s A2 scenario.
You can use the same scenario.
Roughly the same level as between 1940 and 2010.
None.
Roughly the same as the average over the last 20 years.
Roughly the same as the average over the last 20 years.
Any other questions?
Shit, there are hundreds of questions that you’d need to answer to get a realistic response to your hypothetical - the ones I posed were just a few of them. In addition to what I mentioned in the last post, I think you’d have to look at ocean currents, sea surface temperatures, humidity levels, atmospheric cycling, and a host of other issues, including, I’m sure,hundreds of factors I don’t know about.
That’s to say nothing of the fact that a couple of your responses to my questions weren’t useful. Ice caps and glaciers, for example, have been changing at varying rates over the last 20 years. Global distribution of temperature anomalies has changed as well. Even if the gaps I mentioned were the only ones, you didn’t provide enough to answer your question.
I’m not going to answer it, because I can’t do it justice. There’s a reason the projections section in the IPCC TAR include 100 pages of discussion and 13 pages of references. My examples (which were only a few of the factors missing from your scenario) were just meant to illustrate the fact that it’s not as simple as you try to make it out to be.
That’s why I used the word “average.”
Somebody seems to be making the simple prediction that in the absence if immediate and drastic action, there is very likely to be a major negative impact on human well being.
I guess things aren’t that simple after all, hey?
I’m a little tired of you evading questions and obfuscating opinions in semantic rubbish. The thing is you aren’t using unfair tactics, you’re not even playing the same game.
That particular argument has nothing to do with ACC. Certainly, if we advance technologically to the point where we either stop polluting, or can fully reverse the effects of historic pollution, then we’ll be in pretty decent shape. Of course, if we have to do so to avoid the ACC problem, then that would just mean that the scientists are right.
So, it seems that his argument in this particular case isn’t that there isn’t a problem, but that we will be able to solve it with technology. While that goes against many of his other rants, I don’t have a particular problem with that notion. It does require that we acknowledge the problem so that we can focus the technology gains in that direction. On board with that, are you?
His overall argument seems to boil down to “There’s not a problem because if there is a problem, we’ll solve it”, which is a pretty stupid argument, but then I’ve never expected much from Crichton.
That’s nonsense. I would ask you to show me what questions I have evaded, but ironically, I would expect you to evade the question.
Maybe it does, and maybe it doesn’t. Either way, it’s telling that you simply dismissed it because of it’s author.
The OP set the debate in these terms:
Is anyone interested in discussing these topics? Or do I have to keep wading through more personal sniping among players who already know the quality of their opponents, yet continue to bash their heads against walls?
Once the discussion stops adressing the issues and becomes little more than personal feuding. it ceases to be useful or informative and is not even entertaining. (Where are Bob and George when we need them?)
[ /Modding ]