You increased carbon output with this thread.
What are you talking about, much of “established Scientific Fact” is consensus that says this is the right interpretation of the known facts and the most plausible theory. I think you are confusing testing and measurement with Scientific Theory. Many correct theories take decades to be confirmed as the accepted theory. Consensus is a large part of Science.
Jim
I don’t completely agree because AGW is not the only thing we’re doing, but I’ll not argue the point at the moment. I’ll concede a lot of suffering, deaths, and displacements. A LOT.
Isosleepy, I think you’re missing the consequences of the things you’ve mentioned. If the temperature goes up quite a bit in Canada, it doesn’t actually get more pleasant here; it gets more difficult to live here for all the animals and plants that are very well adapted to the former climate, diseases, pests, and parasites are also thriving, we have a situation where Canadians are using much more energy to keep houses cool in summer where we haven’t bothered before, the permafrost is melting (which contains vast quantities of methane, another greenhouse gas), there’s the mountain pine beetle destroying unbelievably huge sections of forest in the mountains (and not being killed by nice, cold winters), there’s the problems with crop failures when the climate changes from what the plants are adapted for, there’s reduced protective snow-cover in winter which can created drier soil conditions and plant damage, there’s reduced fresh water, there’s the melting of all the glaciers in Canada, to list a few down-sides of a warmer Canada.
Suffice to say that a warmer Canada will probably mean less fresh water, much less food for the world (the United States, Japan, and Asia are our biggest consumers of food products) and increased greenhouse gas emissions in a positive feedback loop (conditions create conditions that increase the original conditions - it’s a bad thing in this situation). I suggest you do some research into the vast, interconnected web of AGW consequences to get a better idea of the big picture, and why people are so afraid of it. The more I learn, the more afraid I am. If anything, we aren’t being scared ENOUGH about AGW.
In terms of weather, which decade in the 20th century was best for Canada?
More’s the pity if that’s true these days, especially if those who consent have not done tests of their own.
Please repost with some content: What do you mean by this glib little remark?
To the best of my knowledge, the scientists in question, have tested, done models and simulations, argued and did all the little things we would expect of scientist.
I think one of us is ignorant in how science works. Actually, we are probably both ignorant to different degrees.
Read into the history of advance physics or maybe paleontology if I am failing to communicate what I mean by consensus.
Jim
A ton of consensus is outweighed by an ounce of proof. And proof is sorely lacking.
That is a great argument. Really loaded with value. Did you coin it yourself or did Exxon provide it for you?
So CO[sub]2[/sub] in the atmosphere has increased at a great rate over the last 150 years. According to science, CO[sub]2[/sub] acts as a green house gas. What part of this are you unable to follow?
That’s the problem! The Global Warming “Skeptics” have a bunch of cute, memorable slogans.
The non-Skeptics just have all that Science stuff. B-o-r-i-n-g!
If it’s that simple, it should be easy enough to test AGW with sealed vivaria.
Why would a test done in a terrarium be convincing? Why don’t you try it, maybe the results will convince you. I do not think you are doing the people on your side of the argument a favor with this idea.
Take two sealed vivaria on a sunny windowsill, subject it to some sunlight for a few weeks and ensure one has a standard mix of atmosphere and the other has the same mix, but with the CO[sub]2[/sub] increased by 50%. In fact add a third vivarium with a 100% increase in CO[sub]2[/sub].
What results would you expect?
Would this convince you if the temperature did indeed increase more in the vivaria with increased CO[sub]2[/sub]?
I believe what the scientists are telling us and I would not treat such a test as very conclusive, but maybe it will be enough for you.
Jim
Because it’s an actual test, as opposed to a computer model.
My side of the argument is the truth. Convincing evidence that AGW is valid would be a big favor to me.
I would predict no significant difference in temperatures.
What would you expect?
Yes. If the vivaria with the double carbon dioxide had a significant temperature increase, say .10 C, then AGW has some traction.
Why not? And why do you think such an experiment is not very conclusive? If the relationship is as simple as you claim, then the experiment ought to confirm or deny it.
I’m willing to risk my beliefs. Are you willing to risk yours?
So why did temperatures decrease after WW2?
Correllation is not causation.
There’s also a corellation between temperature and the sun’s sunspot activity. Correllation is not causation.
There’s also a correllation between temperature and the strength of cosmic rays. Correllation is not causation.
Present actual proof and you’ll have everyone behind you. Models and simulations prove nothing. Me, I’m sitting on the fence.
Chain link? That would explain the aroma of grilled taint…
Sigh…It doesn’t matter! China, India and all other emerging industrial powers aren’t going to give a shit. Talk about treaties and bullshit is just that, bullshit.
Nothing will change re “saving the climate” and those of you who are naive enough to think the aforementioned nations will curb their emissions to any worthwhile point are wearing rose-colored particle masks.
And people say the skeptics use “sound bites” and “cute, memorable slogans”? … the disagreement is not about whether GHGs will warm the planet. The debate is about how much they will warm the planet. There is no consensus on this question, with scientific estimates varying by an order of magnitude…
Nor is it a simple question. Your statement is akin to saying “According to science, if you heat up one end of a 160 pound object, the whole thing will warm up. What part of this are you unable to follow?” Well … yes … but putting my feet into a bucket of hot water does not make my whole body warm up. Neither the human body nor the climate system are simple systems that obey simple rules like “if a then b”.
Climate is a multi-stable, driven, chaotic, constructal, optimally turbulent, terawatt scale heat engine. It has a host of known and unknown drivers, resonances, internal energy transfers, and feedbacks. It is comprised of five major subsystems; ocean, atmosphere, lithosphere, cryosphere, and biosphere. None of these systems are well understood. Each subsystem has its own known and unknown forcings, and interacts singly and in concert with all of the other systems. New forcings, resonances, and feedbacks are discovered weekly.
To paraphrase your question above, “What part of the climate system are we unable to follow?”
The answer, unfortunately, is far, far too much.
Your idea that the effect of CO2 on our planetary climate system can be reduced to sound bite physics or basic science, while alluring, is an incorrect oversimplification of a very complex problem.
w.
The only proof that will be good enough for you is the things that scientists are predicting actually happening? Sorry, don’thave my time machine built yet. Some of the predictions are happening - the arctic and antarctic ice shelves are melting, the permafrost is melting - these things are measurable.
Scientists are making their best guesses based on all the data they can get their hands on, and modelling that data the best they can. Some of the models and data can be considered somewhat suspect, because they’re dealing with numbers higher than we have ever encountered before in our recorded history - we have already put some numbers off the charts. We’re pushing into unexplored territory in some areas, so there can be no proof - we can only look at what we’re doing and try our best to guess at what the consequences of unprecedented C02 levels in the atmosphere will be. Most experts agree at this point that it’s not likely to be good - the real debate is just how bad it’s going to be.
I’m not willing to completely disregard educated guesses anyway, which is basically all we have for discussing the future climate of the world. I don’t have to see a speeding car hit a wall to know that a speeding car will crumple when it hits a wall. There are many things you can know in life without direct observation (like gravity, for example - I don’t believe we have any way of actually proving it’s there, but its existence is proven by its actions on other things).
Attitudes like yours are part of what makes these discussions so frustrating; there is no way to prove what is going to happen to all of us, but people refuse to see the direction we’re going in until we’re actually there and it’s far, far too late. Even then, I suspect people will find ways to rationalize their way out of taking any responsibility for what has happened. But the consequences for being wrong about it not happening - how can we afford to take that chance? We can’t just switch to our back up planet once we agree that we have, indeed, broken this one.
That’s a very big leap. It’s comments like that that give the AGWers a bad press. So I’ve just got to have faith, right? Sorry.
Well yeah. Otherwise they aren’t scientists and you aren’t talking about science.
For an hypothesis like AGW to be scientific it has to be either replicable or make falsifiable predictions. Obviously in this case it can’t be replicable, therfore it needs to make falsifiable predictions. In short if “things that scientists are predicting” can’t be demonstrated to be “actually happening” then it isn’t science.
An observation that he will only be convinced when he sees some science is hardly a staggering blow to your oponent’s credibility.
They are also post-hoc predictions, commonly known as postdictions.
It has been well known for 40 years or more that the Earth has been experiencing a warming trend since since the early-mid 19th century. Nobody disputed that AFAIK. With a warming trend already well established and observed it is not a prediction to say that ice will start to melt, it is a banal truism.
This appears to be a classic exmaple of that this thread is all about. People making glib comments that “precictions have been made” and the “issue is resolved” when in fact nothing of the sort has happened.
Show me someone who predicted the melting of the ice caps based on atmospheric composition before an indiputable warming trend has been documented and we can call that a prediction. Show me someone who has said that when atmospheric composition reaches X the permafrost will be found Y degrees north and we can call that a falsifiable prediction and say they are pratising science.
Show me someone who sees the airs temperature rising and predicts that the snow will start to melt and I will yawn. That’s a postdiction, it’s banal and trite and in no way scienctific.
As I’ve said in other threads in this subject, I will be convinced when we can do 3 things:
-
Reach the minimum standard of 95% probability that AGW is real. Anything less than that and we could just as easily be dealing with a random event. 90% probability when we have an infinitely uncertain sample space is a joke. That;s a 10% chance that it happened coincidentally to human action. The odds of getting a royal flush is much less than 10%, yet it happens dozens of times a day in games around the world simply because of the huge sample space. We noticed global temperatures and started investingating precisely because the trend was detected. It could just as easily have been any one of a million other trends that drewthemselves to our attention, and all of them would also correlate to an increase in atmopsheric carbon. Anyhting less than 95% probability for a self selected sample like this is a joke statistically speaking.
-
The proponents of the hypothesis make falsifiable predictions, and when the predictions are proven wrong they recant their endorsement of the hypothesis. That is how science is supposed to work. If the proponents aren’t doing that then they simply are not pratising science. I know some posters have pointed to examples of proponents making multiple predictions and saying that one of them came true, but thet is about as scientific as Edgar Cayce’s shotgun prediction principle. If you want to make multiple predictions then if any of them fail you are obliged to reject the hypothesis. Anything else is unscientific.
-
Make predictions that don’t follow an existing trend. Anyone in 1960 who was prepared to believe that the current trend would continue could have “predicted” melting ice. It’s an unavoidable consequence of rising consequences. The problem is that they could have said that pixies were going to cause the ice melt and the prediction would have been correct. That doesn’t prove the existence of pixies. That’s why science requires actual predictions. For the AGW hypothesis to have any legs to needs predict somehting that would not be true of AGW was not true and must be true if AGW is correct. It needs to be falsifiable. Ice will melt as tempratures rise no matter what caused the tmeprature to rise, and as such predictions that ice will melt in a well documented warming event doesn’t support AGW or pixies.Show me a simple falsifiable prediction made based on AGW, an observation that would not have been possible if AGW didn’t exist and must be made if AGW is true.
So those are my three criteria for recanting my skepticism. They aren’t unreasonable requiests, they arent; gold standards, they aren’t arguments for doing nothing. They are simply three criteria that AGW must fill in order to meet the minimum standard imposed on a scientific hypothesis in any other field.
For some reason because atmopshpere science is so complex the AGW hypothesis seems to get a pass on statndard scientifc criteria such as replicability/falsifiablity and statistical rigour. Well I’m an old school scientist and if an hypotheis can’t be demonstrated to be statistically supportable, falsifiable, make useful predictions then I remain skeptical of it.
I hardly think that’s unreasonable.
Liberal, I think you may be misinterpreting consensus. Think of it as “widescale acceptance of methodology, data, and conclusions”. It is the basis behind peer review, which is the base level for dissemination in the scientific community. When people peer-review a paper they do not re-run the tests, they make sure that the methodology is good, the data makes sense, and the conclusions are valid inferences from the data.
When many scientists then duplicate those results, and the vast majority of other scientists in the field accept their methodology, data, and conclusions, then you have scientific consensus.
The world is too big and has too many highly specialized fields for the layperson, or even a scientist in a totally different field, to read all of the papers and study up on all of the theories out there, let alone run the tests themselves. Thus, we rely on a consensus of scientists in those fields. The trick is to be able to differentiate between actual consensus and media hype.