Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience.

[vy65]

Then you are the re ed one.

[vy65]

The answer to your questions:

No, science is not about keeping lists. Pissing contests on the internet are all about that, though.

I don't pretend is means anything, other than some mild anecdotal value.

I got tired of thread after thread after thread after thread on the subject and thought one larger clearinghouse might be useful.

Is keeping a list silly? Yeah, I would say so. Am I going to keep at it? nah, I got kinda bored with it a while back.

I have however gotten into some interesting discussions here. As an exercise, I have gotten to read some actual scientific papers, and learned a great deal that I didn't know before. , I even exchanged email with one of the scientific papers' authors, and that was cool, after having read about the paper in the news, and the paper itself.

Underlying all my discussions, is that love of learning, silly list or no. I like streching myself a bit, and have learned a good deal, even from Darrin, when he can bring himself to post something worthwhile.

Ok. Just making sure.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't care.

I see...

You are just a troll.

[vy65]

I see...

You are just a troll.

Why?

[RandomGuy]

No.

FWIW, a fairly reasonable look at the whole mess of silly debate:



There is also a rather good lecture on resources, and exponential growth, split into 8 parts by a (mathmatics?) professor if memory serves.



From a risk management perspective, it works rather well at outlining the debate. The guy who made it did a LOT of work on that and follow up material. Far more than even I care to sift through.

Not sure if you want to spend time on it, but if you do, it is probably one of the more rational, accessible, approaches to the issue I have seen.

[RandomGuy]

No one denies it has warmed in the past century.
No one denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
No one deines that humans emit CO2.

The REAL questions are:

Is CO2 the main driver of the warming?
Is the recent warming significant compared to historical patterns?
Will effects of the warming be catastrophic?
Will drastic cuts in CO2 emissions make much difference?

This is where reasonable people can agree to disagree. Calling people that you disagree with re ed doesn't add much to the debate.

You forgot:

Will cutting CO2 emissions have a catastrophic effect on our economy/civilization?

That particular one is probably the one that makes the issue of whether the science says what moot in terms of public policy.

I am pretty sure the answer that is "no, there is a good indication that it will help it in the long run".

[DarrinS]

FWIW, a fairly reasonable look at the whole mess of silly debate:

Viking boy again? No thanks.

[MannyIsGod]

At least that post from Darrin attempts to outline the argument. However, the categorization leaves much to be desired.

The context of global warming in history inevitability is irrelevant. I definitely understand that many aspects of the warming planet, are indeed, new and present a change that has not been seen before. That is not to stay it has never been warmer ever before in the planets history. That isn't questioned or up for debate but it is largely unimportant as well.

What is important is how it will affect humans and whether or not we're the cause. Well, what is causing the warming is observable and is understood. Spectroscopy is the most direct observation available and it definitely shows that CO2 is causing the warming. Indirect observations confirm this as well.

Quite frankly, there is little wiggle room for CO2 as a cause for the warming.

At this point, the main question of what is important is indeed how humans will react to future warming and its effects. Those effects will likely be substantial as an increase of 3-4 degrees Celsius by the end of the 21st century will have HUGE impacts on humanity. As I've said before, that doesn't necessarily mean catastrophic because that word is very very very subjective (there is no catastrophic index that we measure events against to determine if they've crossed some magic catastrophic threshold, AFAIK). What matters is determining whether or not the events are significant enough to causes loss in terms of life and economic factors. That is almost certainly a yes.

[Wild Cobra]

What is important is how it will affect humans and whether or not we're the cause. Well, what is causing the warming is observable and is understood. Spectroscopy is the most direct observation available and it definitely shows that CO2 is causing the warming. Indirect observations confirm this as well.

LOL...

Really now, neither works for the atmosphere as a whole. Satellite observation is not being done in a stereoscopic form so you cannot tell what is really happening. Even if you can, with other variables, it's still guesswork. Indirect observation has too many more variables yet to really know.

Quite frankly, there is little wiggle room for CO2 as a cause for the warming.

At this point, the main question of what is important is indeed how humans will react to future warming and its effects. Those effects will likely be substantial as an increase of 3-4 degrees Celsius by the end of the 21st century will have HUGE impacts on humanity. As I've said before, that doesn't necessarily mean catastrophic because that word is very very very subjective (there is no catastrophic index that we measure events against to determine if they've crossed some magic catastrophic threshold, AFAIK). What matters is determining whether or not the events are significant enough to causes loss in terms of life and economic factors. That is almost certainly a yes.

[QUOTE=MannyIsGod]

[MannyIsGod]

Of course you can't do it on the atmosphere as a whole. Thats a pretty stupid thing to say. Still not quite as dumb as saying the atmosphere is creating heat. Close, though.

[MannyIsGod]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...land-meltdown/

Excellent example of how scientists fight against false "hype".

Surprised Darrin wasn't all over the initial atlas.

[MannyIsGod]

WC, if you have a problem with specific studies of outgoing LWR and downward LWR feel free to enlighten us as to why the numerous papers on the subject that all come to the same conclusion are wrong.

Thanks.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...land-meltdown/

Excellent example of how scientists fight against false "hype".

Surprised Darrin wasn't all over the initial atlas.

I would imagine because it wasn't found in the blog of some skeptic that he has read, yet.

[RandomGuy]

Viking boy again? No thanks.

It wasn't addressed to you. I already know it won't get through your ideological blinders.

LOL your attempts to dismiss it when you watched it the first time.

[Yonivore]

Al Gore's five loaves and two fishes

17,000 people watched the Algorathon.


Hey, did Algore get re-married or is this an old photo?

[DarrinS]

The climate change "movement" has just done this:

[Wild Cobra]

Of course you can't do it on the atmosphere as a whole. Thats a pretty stupid thing to say. Still not quite as dumb as saying the atmosphere is creating heat. Close, though.

I never said the atmosphere creates heat.

Where do you think I, or anyone, said that?

Link please.

[Wild Cobra]

WC, if you have a problem with specific studies of outgoing LWR and downward LWR feel free to enlighten us as to why the numerous papers on the subject that all come to the same conclusion are wrong.

Thanks.

It's simple. The science is still not well enough understood, and the percentages of error are greater than the results they produce in the papers.

Any spectra emitted from any type of molecule is reabsorbed and re-emitted, and it's impossible to tell to what degree this is occurring in the atmosphere, especially when the gasses interact with each other as well. You have thermal conduction, convection, and radiation. I'm sorry, but there are too many variable to pin down with any accuracy.

Just seeing the incoming and outgoing LW is not enough. That is not a measure in the internal workings of heat transfer on the atmosphere. Only the end result.

[Wild Cobra]

The climate change "movement" has just done this:

LOL...

I used to watch that show, but must have missed that episode.

[Yonivore]

LOL...

I used to watch that show, but must have missed that episode.

It's classic! It's where the term "jumping the shark" came from.

[Wild Cobra]

It's classic! It's where the term "jumping the shark" came from.

I may have seen it, but just not remembered.

Let's see...

Where was I 9/20/77?

Must have been with a hot date.

[MannyIsGod]

It's simple. The science is still not well enough understood, and the percentages of error are greater than the results they produce in the papers.

Any spectra emitted from any type of molecule is reabsorbed and re-emitted, and it's impossible to tell to what degree this is occurring in the atmosphere, especially when the gasses interact with each other as well. You have thermal conduction, convection, and radiation. I'm sorry, but there are too many variable to pin down with any accuracy.

Just seeing the incoming and outgoing LW is not enough. That is not a measure in the internal workings of heat transfer on the atmosphere. Only the end result.

It doesn't matter how much is emitted and remitted because all that matters is how much net energy leaves the system. All that matters in the end is to prove that CO2 is responsible for less net energy leaving the system.

So yes, in fact, seeing that there has been a drop off in outgoing LW radiation in the part of the spectrum CO2 covers is proof that CO2 is indeed preventing energy from leaving the earth's system. Those study's don't attempt to say what is happening before then.

[MannyIsGod]

I never said the atmosphere creates heat.

Where do you think I, or anyone, said that?

Link please.

Of course you did. How quickly you try to forget. Not that I blame you considering how dumb it was.


http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...0&postcount=84

With the way the greenhouse effect traps heat, it becomes more heat than the sun provides.

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...7&postcount=86

To ask, means you don't understand the greenhouse effect. Having more heat value than supplied by the sun is already an accepted part of these sciences.

[Wild Cobra]

It doesn't matter how much is emitted and remitted because all that matters is how much net energy leaves the system.

The difference between energy entering the system and leaving it determines if we are warming or cooling.

All that matters in the end is to prove that CO2 is responsible for less net energy leaving the system.

Yep... Typical M.O.

Anything that you can claim CO2 is warming. I know, and you admitted it. You don't care what's true, you only care for a way to say you are correct.

So yes, in fact, seeing that there has been a drop off in outgoing LW radiation in the part of the spectrum CO2 covers is proof that CO2 is indeed preventing energy from leaving the earth's system. Those study's don't attempt to say what is happening before then.

No it isn't. All it proves is that the CO2 in the upper most atmosphere is cooling.

[Wild Cobra]

Of course you did. How quickly you try to forget. Not that I blame you considering how dumb it was.


http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...0&postcount=84



http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...7&postcount=86

Idiot...

Look up the word "create." I am not claiming something is coming into existence that doesn't already exist. The heat is already there.

As for "having more heat value than supplied by the sun" still doesn't mean heat is created. My words definitely should have been better. Remember, there is lag, latent heat, and other factors. I was speaking of how the feedback works. The heat is trapped, and as long as the radiation budget is not in balance, the earth will increase in heat value or decrease until it is in equilibrium.

I followed it up with this example:

No, but if I put $100 a week in the bank, and don't take $100 a week out until four weeks later, then I have $400 sitting in the bank.

If that is still over your head, then you should just drop out of this conversation.

Did I create $400 from $100?