False equivalence, IMO.
That is a bit like saying that the flat earth theory and the round earth theory are on the same footing, or that creationism/ID has as much evidence supporting it as evolution.
Not all arguments are created equal, as I have attempted to show.
I have hewed very closely to admitting the weaknesses in the evidence and arguments regarding AGW theory, but have not really gotten anything approaching a consistant level of intellectual honesty from people who profess skepticism on the subject.
You came closest to doing so, but were unable to admit the flaws of your own thinking.
No.
For such a smart person, you sure are pretty thick sometimes.
And you follow this statement with this?
That is not what you meant to imply, but it sure was what you ended up essentially saying.
I don't blame you for not wanting to admit it.
Let's outline the weaknesses, as I see it in AGW, and the strengths of your arguments, when you bother to make them in between logical fallacies.
Climate modeling is imprecise. Basing public policy solely on imperfect models is not a good idea. (notice I started with your favorite schtick)
For all we have studied our climate, our overall knowledge is fairly small, and what we know could turn out to be wrong or invalidated by something we learn tomorrow.
There is no shortage of melodramatic doom and gloom from many people in the environmental movement about the ultimate negative effects. We don't really know what exactly is going to happen.
This is what an honest skeptic would say. Neither you, WC and especially Yonivore are honest skeptics however, and you usually go much further into the swamp of bad logic, bad science, and conspiracy theory to try and make your case.
The main difference now is that neither you, WC, nor Yonivore can, or will, similarly state what you think the strongest arguments of those proposing AGW are. You all seem to be, as implied by the OP and demonstrated by your continued posting, patently incapable of such honesty.
So there is reason to be a skeptic. It's not like being a flat-Earther or a Holocaust denier. Apology accepted.
That said, none of those rise to the level of a fatal flaw.
Models, although not useful in and of themselves, do provide a tool for thinking about complex systems.
Our knowledge is impercise, but is getting better as we learn and study our climate and its systems.
There sure is a lot of meladrama, but consideration of worst case scenarios is simply prudent risk management, ESPECIALLY when one is operating from a position of ignorance.
I don't have to understand the science fully, or get perfect information to make decisions and reasonably mitigate risks.
*If* you were honest, you would admit that one overriding principle.
It is the way you do it. You did notice the le of the OP, right?
Don't flatter yourself, CosmoDarrin.
Lost in translation imo.
You don't need to be able to reproduce a model of the earth's surface down to the smallest unit of accuracy to acknowledge the earth is essentially a sphere. Thats essentially what you're doing with the climate. Because we don't have the resolution to predict every move of the temp gauge in ever place on earth accurately then we can't acknowledge that increasing the amount of energy stored on earth will raise the global temp?
There's reason to be skeptical of certain aspects. If someone tells you they can tell you exactly whats going to happen to San Antonio in the coming 100 years as result of climate change there's a huge reason to be skeptical.
If someone tells you that increasing the CO2 levels of the atmosphere will lead to a higher global temp there is no scientific reason to express reasonable doubt.
I also take issue when people say like our knowledge of the climate is "small". Really? Get a PhD in climatology and tell me the knowledge is small by any stretch of the imagination. Because there are questions in how certain aspects of the system works does not somehow decrease the level of overall knowledge and understanding we have over the climate system.
Remember that time Darrin claimed Antarctica was gaining ice?
I do.
Based off of the study he was pimping regarding the Himalayan glaciers. The GRACE information shows that we've lost 4.2 trillion tons of ice over the past 8 years world wide but somehow the real story was that over that same period 400 billions of expected loss in the Himalayan area didn't occur.
Remember when some of you who are so knowledgeable about atmospheric dynamics discounted what I said regarding the short term gain in ice?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1279The results aren't a complete surprise: scientists had already reported that the westerlies which feed the Karakoram have brought cooler, cloudier and snowier conditions to some regions (Archer & Caldeira, 2008) which may or may not be a long term effect but could partly explain how the very highest glaciers are storing water (Scherler et al, 2011).
But yeah, I don't understand the science behind it. Nope.
Last edited by MannyIsGod; 02-24-2012 at 05:15 PM.
Your knowledge is small Manny, just deal with it.
Your knowledge is small Manny, just deal with it.
That's not what she said. BOOM!
Remember that time Darrin claimed Antarctica was gaining ice?
I do.
Based off of the study he was pimping regarding the Himalayan glaciers. The GRACE information shows that we've lost 4.2 trillion tons of ice over the past 8 years world wide but somehow the real story was that over that same period 400 billions of expected loss in the Himalayan area didn't occur.
Remember when some of you who are so knowledgeable about atmospheric dynamics discounted what I said regarding the short term gain in ice?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1279
But yeah, I don't understand the science behind it. Nope.
The Wilkins Ice Shelf is receding, but the net Antarctic ice is increasing.
You can email these guys and tell them they are re ed.
http://www.cpom.org/research/djw-ptrsa364.pdf
Darrin, since you're obviously well versed in the scientific literature regarding ice loss on Antarctica's cryosphere what does the vast majority of it say?
I post an actual scientific paper and you post something from this dip 's blog.
Translation:Even allowing a G30 Gt yrK1 fluctuation in
unsurveyed areas [ Note: study did not survey 24% of the ice sheet, as noted below when they account for that with an estimated range-RG ], they provide a range of K35–C115 Gt yrK1. This range equates to a sea level contribution of K0.3–C0.1 mm yrK1 and so Antarctica has provided, at most, a negligible component of observed sea-level rise. In consequence, the data places a further burden on accounting (Munk 2003) for the twentieth century rise of 1.5–2 mm yrK1. What is clear, from the data, is that fluctuations in some coastal regions reflect long-term losses of ice mass, whereas fluctuations elsewhere appear to be short-term changes in snowfall.
"The Antarctic is not the cause of the observed seal level rise, we need to find what is driving that trend".
A bit more detail on the subject:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/anta...termediate.htm
It's important to distinguish between Antarctic land ice and sea ice which are two separate phenomena. Reporting on Antarctic ice often fails to recognise the difference between sea ice and land ice. To summarize the situation with Antarctic ice trends:
Antarctic land ice is decreasing at an accelerating rate
Antarctic sea ice is increasing despite the warming Southern OceanFWIW.In summary, Antarctic sea ice is a complex and unique phenomenon. The simplistic interpretation that it must be cooling around Antarctica is decidedly not the case. Warming is happening - how it affects specific regions is complicated.
You of all people should be appreciative of the fact that even dip s can post valid science done by real scientists.I post an actual scientific paper and you post something from this dip 's blog.
I see the problem with modeling as being impossible to make a proper model. In mathematics. Models are only as accurate as the people making them. When you start with assumptions, they make your model such that those assumptions hold true.
We are dealing with simple algebra. We are dealing with 4th degree equations in some cases and far too many variables. This may help:
Algebra; undetermined systems
No, I am skeptical. I just gravitate towards AWG being far less than that the alarmists say, because that's where the evidence leads when you stop relying on models that tell you what you want them to.
Try me. What argument?
I post an actual scientific paper and you post something from this dip 's blog.
Can you post any other scientific papers on that subject that support your POV that somehow Antarctica is gaining ice? There's a reason you completely ignored my question because you know what the answer is yet you default to the one piece of scientific literature that goes that way.
In any event, you should not throw rocks when you're in an obvious glass house. You want scientific research? I'll be more than happy to provide it.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/31.../1754.abstract
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...GL040222.shtml
http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/publ...06GL026369.pdf
http://ps.uci.edu/scholar/velicogna/...al_grl2011.pdf
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v...s/ngeo102.html
http://etienne.berthier.free.fr/down...l_GPC_2009.pdf
Oh, and lets not forget this one.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture10847.html
You want more?
Now what do you have?
LOL...
LOL...
LOL...
A meteorologist with a few extra creds....
LOL...
LOL...
can't even predict changes under a month...
Those extra credits in school and extra PHD style studying makes you capable of godhood...
Really now.
LOL...
LOL...
LOL...
The paper Darrin posted does in fact say that Antarctica land ice is increasing. Its not talking about sea ice. However, its the only paper that comes to that conclusion. Furthermore, the methods used in that paper have been shown to underestimate ice loss in other places such as Greenland.
So, while the paper supports Darrin's belief, its the only one to do so when everyone else is publishing the opposite. Furthermore, Darrin himself has posted the results from the GRACE measurements of late say the Himalayas have not lost ice but also say Antarctica is losing large amounts of ice and contradict his belief in this scenario.
There are currently 6 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 6 guests)
Posting Permissions
