iNow Posted December 17, 2007 Posted December 17, 2007 CO2 will increase for some decades yet, but not at an accelerating rate. This remains counter to the evidence I've presented. By what mechanism do you suggest that the rate of our contributions to atmospheric CO2 will NOT increase for decades to come? What is the support behind your contention that the rate of increase to atmospheric CO2 will NOT accelerate from that which we experience presently? All indicators I've seen suggest that DRASTIC change is needed to prevent the rate of increase from climbing. How about you make your next post less about me and more about the data, eh?
Mr Skeptic Posted December 17, 2007 Posted December 17, 2007 Let me again clarify my position. In previous posts, I expressed with both support and peer-reviewed citation how Lance's claims were wrong and how his attempts to down-play future impact of cross-modality predicted warming trends over the coming century are unsupported, and, in fact, false. I cited specific research, and also gave context for the claims made in that research, as well as openly shared the premises on which those conclusions were reached... Premises which themselves were supported. Now... Here's my point. Lance has simply said, "Nope, my opinion says that won't be the case." I have shown that he is wrong... not because he's failed to support his case with evidence... but because I personally offered evidence which is counter to his claims. He has only responded by placing suspicion on the entire process of modelling (as he has done in other threads), yet cannot show any faults in the models themselves. The models generally make the premise that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will increase. Without that premise, the models say nothing. This is a premise that SkepticLance has challenged, and I do not see any way that those premises can be proven. Sure, we will (probably) be using more energy, and if we continue to burn coal without taking preventive action, the amount of CO2 will (probably) increase. Regardless, there are countless things that could happen within a hundred years. Look back one hundred years and tell me who predicted the stuff we have now? No one? How then do you expect that we can predict what will happen in the next hundred years, if we couldn't predict that before? The evidence here is clearly that we can't predict the future that far ahead. iNow, Have you proven that we won't change to using nuclear or renewable power? Have you proven that we won't invent a successful fusion power plant within 100 years? Have you proven that the warming won't cause an increase in plant and algae growth? Have you proven that we won't start taking some preventative measures, such as fertilizing the ocean with iron, or using terra preta to put carbon into the soil? This is a very limited list, and I can expand further on the difficulties of predicting the future if you wish. You really need to support your contention or shut up about it. Well, you too then. I think you are being a bit more demanding of SkepticLance than you are of yourself.
Reaper Posted December 17, 2007 Posted December 17, 2007 You know, the stuff that hasn't been proven one way or the other yet. Like human contribution to global warming. Human contribution to global warming, when all is said and done, is not proven, and the evidence consists of statistical correlations and small-scale cause-effect extrapolations. But since it may not be possible to ever actually prove, that means we may have to settle for what we have. Not proven?! We know exactly how much greenhouse gases is being dumped right into the atmosphere by fossil fuels, and we know how much of it is being absorbed back into the CO2 cycle (or other cycles/processes). This isn't so much about arguing points of view or alternative theories as much as it is about SkepticLance not keeping his facts straight, or providing sources, or both! For those of you unaware, here is a link showing trends from 1750 to today: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/em_cont.htm Regardless, there are countless things that could happen within a hundred years. Look back one hundred years and tell me who predicted the stuff we have now? No one? How then do you expect that we can predict what will happen in the next hundred years, if we couldn't predict that before? The evidence here is clearly that we can't predict the future that far ahead. iNow, Have you proven that we won't change to using nuclear or renewable power? Have you proven that we won't invent a successful fusion power plant within 100 years? Have you proven that the warming won't cause an increase in plant and algae growth? Have you proven that we won't start taking some preventative measures, such as fertilizing the ocean with iron, or using terra preta to put carbon into the soil? This is a very limited list, and I can expand further on the difficulties of predicting the future if you wish. I don't think anyone here is arguing that this sort of thing is inevitable. The models only assume the status quo, and they predict many scenarios, not just one. We only hear about the worst case scenario because that's the only one that will actually get people to pay attention . Plus, in the future, the population of the planet will be much larger. Just think about how that would strain things; more people means more resources. Well, you too then. I think you are being a bit more demanding of SkepticLance than you are of yourself. IMO, I think iNow is doing just fine. It isn't his fault that the opposition doesn't have any adequate counter arguments. Oh, and for the record: Lockheed said "Are you even aware of how small the uncertainty or the magin of error is in these climate models?" No, I am not. And neither are you. The problem is that the major source of error comes not from what we know, but from what we do not. The climate models make a range of assumptions, which require that certain unknowns are considered not to matter. Measurements usually have a less than 0.5% margin of error (meaning plus or minus a few tenths to a few hundredths of a degree). Whatever margin of error there is, probably won't make much of a difference. Climate isn't nearly as chaotic (and therefore far more predictable) as weather. ================================================= I'm beginning to sound like a broken record here, but I keep saying that climate models ARE NOT STATISTICAL. They are based on the known laws of physics. 1
iNow Posted December 17, 2007 Posted December 17, 2007 The models generally make the premise that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will increase. Without that premise, the models say nothing. This is a premise that SkepticLance has challenged, and I do not see any way that those premises can be proven. Am I the only person here who has actually read this? http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter10.pdf Cumulative emissions for the period from 2000 to 2100 (to 2300) range between 596 GtC (933 GtC) for SP450, and 1,236 GtC (3,052 GtC) for SP1000. The emission uncertainty varies between –26 and +28% about the reference cases in year 2100 and between –26 and +34% in year 2300, increasing with time. The range of uncertainty thus depends on the magnitude of the CO2 stabilisation level and the induced climate change. The additional uncertainty in projected emissions due to uncertainty in climate sensitivity is illustrated by two additional simulations with 1.5°C and 4.5°C climate sensitivities (see Box 10.2). The resulting emissions for this range of climate sensitivities lie within the range covered by the uncertainty in processes driving the carbon cycle. ............... There's additional data in the article. I'm happy to duplicate more of it here, but it truly is easier for all involved for you to read it yourself.
SkepticLance Posted December 17, 2007 Posted December 17, 2007 To Lockheed. On margin of error. We are talking about two different things here. You are talking about calculated margin, and I am talking about genuine error. You can calculate margin of error, and be correct if you have all the facts. The point I am making is that we do not have all the facts in relation to climate over the next 100 years. It is the unknowns that will kill it. To Mr. Skeptic yes, you are correct to cast doubt on our ability to predict the future. I certainly do not know what will happen in the future. However, I do know what has happened in the past. This is not the first time that well meaning people have tried to predict the future, often using (like the Club of Rome) the very best brains and the very best methods. Inevitably they get it wrong! This should tell people something. There is one principle I know that is quite reliable in making predictions. Not 100% reliable, because nothing is. That principle is that, any long term trend is likely to continue. For example : the demand for energy will continue to increase. For example : our ability to supply energy will increase. Technology will improve substantially. Appropriate new technology will be introduced and become widespread. There are some things I do not dispute. I agree that CO2 is increasing and this is driving global warming. I know that CO2 emissions need to be controlled. I do NOT agree that they will get further out of control. I have more faith in human technology than that. Humans are highly adaptable, and are fully able to change things, especially when that involves introducing new technology.
Reaper Posted December 17, 2007 Posted December 17, 2007 To Lockheed. On margin of error. We are talking about two different things here. You are talking about calculated margin, and I am talking about genuine error. You can calculate margin of error, and be correct if you have all the facts. The point I am making is that we do not have all the facts in relation to climate over the next 100 years. It is the unknowns that will kill it. Genuine error? The margin of error includes all the known significant variables. There are only so many compounds in Earth's atmosphere that contribute to global warming or global cooling (or rather, there are only so many compounds in the atmosphere, period). Can you be a little more specific about this genuine error you speak of, and one that hasn't been debunked yet?
Mr Skeptic Posted December 17, 2007 Posted December 17, 2007 Very good, iNow. I shall take this as sufficient evidence that the effects of warming on the carbon cycle have been accounted for. What about all the other points I made? iNow, Have you proven that we won't change to using nuclear or renewable power? Have you proven that we won't invent a successful fusion power plant within 100 years? Have you proven that the warming won't cause an increase in plant and algae growth? Have you proven that we won't start taking some preventative measures, such as fertilizing the ocean with iron, or using terra preta to put carbon into the soil? This is a very limited list, and I can expand further on the difficulties of predicting the future if you wish.
Pangloss Posted December 17, 2007 Posted December 17, 2007 Not proven?! We know exactly how much greenhouse gases is being dumped right into the atmosphere by fossil fuels, and we know how much of it is being absorbed back into the CO2 cycle (or other cycles/processes). You say it's proven? Then why doesn't the IPCC say it's proven? They don't, you know. So why is it so important that we ensure that anyone who posts on SFN use the word "proven"? Why is that necessary? What are we accomplishing by requiring that all posters use that word? Is it so dangerous to point out that there is reasonable doubt about the cause? What are WE going to accomplish HERE by drowning out and ostracizing anybody who does not use the word "proven"? That is what I want to know. And I really don't think it's asking a whole lot for it to be explained to me why we have to behave in this manner. I've BEEN on boards where the community refuses to countenance other points of view. Those boards accomplish NOTHING. They convince NO ONE. They get NO WHERE. Not EVER. And they drive away the EXACT people who could help them with that problem. Is that what you all want to happen here? Are you SURE?
SkepticLance Posted December 17, 2007 Posted December 17, 2007 Lockheed said "Can you be a little more specific about this genuine error you speak of, and one that hasn't been debunked yet?" I am kind of repeating myself here, which I am reluctant to do, since this was covered in an earlier post. It is those factors which are not properly understood that contribute the greatest error. My earlier post mentioned the effects of increased plant growth, changing cloud patterns, changes in sunspot activity etc. If we knew the impact of poorly understood factors, there would not be the error. I would suspect there are other factors that will come to us as a surprise.
swansont Posted December 17, 2007 Posted December 17, 2007 The problem here, ultimately, is not that you're right and iNow is wrong, or vice versa, but that we don't have enough people espousing politically incorrect points of view. That's not because those points of view don't exist -- that's the part iNow doesn't seem to understand. He thinks if you can't prove your point then your point is wrong. That's not the case at all, it's only one possibility. You may very well be right but simply didn't make your case. iNow has been discussing science, not politics. It's expected that when you propose something you back it up with evidence. If you can't, or your methodology is flawed, your point is not valid/not supported. It's not about right/wrong, per se. This is not a laboratory, it's a discussion board. Anybody who thinks we're proving or disproving science here is deluding themselves. This board is for (a) clarifying the details, and (b) debating conjectures and theories. You know, the stuff that hasn't been proven one way or the other yet. Like human contribution to global warming. All we can do is discuss the science that's out there. But the discussion should be about science, and be limited to the science (if the discussion is here; discuss politics on the politics board) Human contribution to global warming, when all is said and done, is not proven, and the evidence consists of statistical correlations and small-scale cause-effect extrapolations. But since it may not be possible to ever actually prove, that means we may have to settle for what we have. So what we do about that is REALLY IMPORTANT. Do we listen to all points of view and proceed when we have a majority, recognizing that we could still be making a mistake and taking careful measures to protect against that possibility? Or do we drown out the opposition, ostracize anyone who's not on board, and take no precautions against that possibility whatsoever? You know what, that doesn't seem like such a hard call to me. And it's the green text above that I want to support here. Not the red. The green is the IPCC. If someone has valid, scientific objections, they should make them.
bombus Posted December 17, 2007 Posted December 17, 2007 bombus Have your read Lomborg's book? You need to. I recommend it. The thing is that he offended the delicate sensibilities of those people who firmly believe that everything humans do is destructive. Those people needed a solid kick in the fundamentus. Sadly, presenting truth does not mean truth is accepted, and most people still think with their gonads. Of course I haven't. Anyone so fundamentally stupid to say that species extinction is not linked to habitat loss is not worthy of my attention. I might as well read the Bible for explanations. Lomborg's just out to get a name for himself, get the gullible on his side, and earn cash. He's no scientist and not capable of writing scientific literature. He should be ignored.
Reaper Posted December 17, 2007 Posted December 17, 2007 Ok everybody, lets stop the thread for a second here before everyone starts bashing and cussing each other around. This, as we all know, is a very sensitive topic socially and politically. But, those issues have absolutely nothing to do with the science. It cares very little on the biases and feelings that people may have on it. As such, what we are trying to evaluate here is the validity of the counter argument. We are in no way trying to ostracize the opposition in anyway, but rather to get them to support their counter arguments. Now that is out of the way, let us now continue the debate like calm rational people here. =================================== You say it's proven? Then why doesn't the IPCC say it's proven? They don't, you know. So why is it so important that we ensure that anyone who posts on SFN use the word "proven"? Why is that necessary? What are we accomplishing by requiring that all posters use that word? Is it so dangerous to point out that there is reasonable doubt about the cause? Is that what you all want to happen here? Are you SURE? You said that human contribution to climate change and/or global warming is not proven, which flies in the face of what I know to be true. Humans do indeed have a significant effect on the climate and the atmospheric content of the atmosphere. And how do we know this? Well, lets put aside climate for now and talk about physics and chemistry, for it seems as if a lack of understanding of this fundamental topic is proving to be very detrimental to our understanding of the world around us. Ok, for starters, lets take a greenhouse gas molecule like, say, carbon dioxide: Take a good look at it. Let it sink in. Ok, now that particular molecule can absorb mostly infrared radiation. Now, how does it do this. Well, when a beam of infrared radiation strikes that molecule, it causes it to vibrate. It is then released , where the particular beam now has less energy. It moves on, where it would either strike the ground or will hit yet another greenhouse molecule. As it turns out, all greenhouse gases have this property, absorbing different wavelengths of course. Now, lets take a look at a chart which displays what exactly the sun emits: (SOURCE: http://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_3_1.htm) As you can see, the sun emits mostly visible light, infrared radiation, and UV radiation. 43% of it is visible light in particular, BUT the atmosphere is mostly transparent to visible light. About 7-8% of it is UV, and about the same amount of it is infrared, both of which is absorbed by the atmosphere before it hits the ground. These may seem like small numbers, but they are pretty significant given the amount of energy that hits Earth on a daily basis. Now, lets get back to this carbon dioxide molecule here. Because it has this intrinsic property, that means it can retain heat and consequentially raise the temperature (which by the way is a measure of the average energy). Our atmosphere may contain less than 0.04% of it in our atmosphere, but as we can see this small amount is more than enough to heat the planet up to allow it to have a temperate climate. And, given the trillions upon trillions of tons of gases that make up our atmosphere in total, 0.04% isn't that small a number. Now, you may ask, what is the point of all this. Well then, because of this property, and given the BILLIONS of tons of greenhouse gases we are dumping into the atmosphere (among other things) every year, we know for certain that we do, indeed, contribute to climate change to some degree. And, we also know that we are releasing more and more greenhouse gases every year too, more so than the year before that. The only thing that is being debated here is to what extent that we are contributing to global climate change, and how exactly this climate will change, and more specifically what it means for us humans. So far, all evidence points to the idea that we may very well be the primary driver of climate change and are causing anthropogenic global warming. Unless genuine evidence to the contrary were to be found, we have to use the best we've got, as you said earlier before, however negative or positive that may be. And this isn't about points of view, its about getting some facts straight and using valid scientific data. And believe me, I know what those sites are like (sites that promote only ONE viewpoint); we are doing no such thing here. On the contrary, I'd have to say that this is one of the most forgiving and open-minded sites there is. Because of this and other arguments, I now know why the opposition is false, as opposed to having seeds of doubt planted before. SkepticLance is free to bring up any viewpoint or interpretation he wants, but until he provides valid scientific data his claims will have no validity. Lockheed said "Can you be a little more specific about this genuine error you speak of, and one that hasn't been debunked yet?" I am kind of repeating myself here, which I am reluctant to do, since this was covered in an earlier post. It is those factors which are not properly understood that contribute the greatest error. My earlier post mentioned the effects of increased plant growth, changing cloud patterns, changes in sunspot activity etc. If we knew the impact of poorly understood factors, there would not be the error. I would suspect there are other factors that will come to us as a surprise. Yes, I did catch those thank you very much, and as far as I can tell those have been thoroughly debunked on other earlier posts. Please try again. Of course I haven't. Anyone so fundamentally stupid to say that species extinction is not linked to habitat loss is not worthy of my attention. I might as well read the Bible for explanations. Lomborg's just out to get a name for himself, get the gullible on his side, and earn cash. He's no scientist and not capable of writing scientific literature. He should be ignored. Now this is a genuine example of logical fallacies if I ever seen one. More specifically, this is an ad hominem and a non sequitur. First, Lomborg doesn't claim to be a trained scientist, and second, just because he isn't a scientist doesn't mean that he is not allowed to write scientific literature. After all, Al Gore wasn't a scientist either, does that mean he wasn't allowed to present an Inconvenient Truth? I can list loads of people who weren't scientists, and have written great scientific literature. The difference between Al Gore and Lomborg, from what I can tell, is that Al Gore presented valid data, while Lomborg did not. And second, just because someone has different points of view or are ignorant of (or don't understand the significance of) certain facts doesn't mean they are stupid. That is just a baseless insult and comments such as this have no place on a science forum. Very good, iNow. I shall take this as sufficient evidence that the effects of warming on the carbon cycle have been accounted for. What about all the other points I made? Actually, some of these models do assume that we start using more sustainable methods. I don't have time to actually show you all of them right now, but I found one projection that assumes that in 2100 it is expected that more than 40% of the world's total power supply will come from nuclear or other renewable resources. However, it is also expected that the population will be over 11 billion. And that's just one such projection.
swansont Posted December 17, 2007 Posted December 17, 2007 There are some things I do not dispute. I agree that CO2 is increasing and this is driving global warming. I know that CO2 emissions need to be controlled. I do NOT agree that they will get further out of control. I have more faith in human technology than that. Humans are highly adaptable, and are fully able to change things, especially when that involves introducing new technology. But there are two separate issues here. One is political: what steps, if any, should be taken to mitigate the effect of global warming. But the other is scientific: what would be the effect of doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? Now, the political question depends on the answer to the scientific one, but should be discussed elsewhere. Saying that technology will be developed to avoid this increase in CO2 is also a political question. The question under consideration here is the validity of the prediction that temperature would increase between 2 ºC and 4.5 ºC if CO2 doubled (i.e. what is the climate sensitivity). Factors that might stem this increase are a separate issue, and should be discussed separately.
iNow Posted December 17, 2007 Posted December 17, 2007 Human contribution to global warming, when all is said and done, is not proven, and the evidence consists of statistical correlations and small-scale cause-effect extrapolations. But since it may not be possible to ever actually prove, that means we may have to settle for what we have. Not proven?! We know exactly how much greenhouse gases is being dumped right into the atmosphere by fossil fuels, and we know how much of it is being absorbed back into the CO2 cycle (or other cycles/processes). This isn't so much about arguing points of view or alternative theories as much as it is about SkepticLance not keeping his facts straight, or providing sources, or both! For those of you unaware, here is a link showing trends from 1750 to today: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/em_cont.htm You say it's proven? Then why doesn't the IPCC say it's proven? They don't, you know. So why is it so important that we ensure that anyone who posts on SFN use the word "proven"? Why is that necessary? What are we accomplishing by requiring that all posters use that word? More data. Show me where it's mistaken. Thank you swansont for reminding readers this is not the politics forum. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf The combined anthropogenic RF is estimated to be +1.6 [–1.0, +0.8] W m–2, indicating that, since 1750, it is extremely likely that humans have exerted a substantial warming influence on climate. This RF estimate is likely to be at least five times greater than that due to solar irradiance changes. For the period 1950 to 2005, it is exceptionally unlikely that the combined natural RF (solar irradiance plus volcanic aerosol) has had a warming influence comparable to that of the combined anthropogenic RF. Increasing concentrations of the long-lived greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), halocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6); hereinafter LLGHGs) have led to a combined RF of +2.63 [±0.26] W m–2. Their RF has a high level of scientific understanding. The 9% increase in this RF since the TAR is the result of concentration changes since 1998. — The global mean concentration of CO2 in 2005 was 379 ppm, leading to an RF of +1.66 [±0.17] W m–2. Past emissions of fossil fuels and cement production have likely contributed about three-quarters of the current RF, with the remainder caused by land use changes. For the 1995 to 2005 decade, the growth rate of CO2 in the atmosphere was 1.9 ppm yr–1 and the CO2 RF increased by 20%: this is the largest change observed or inferred for any decade in at least the last 200 years. From 1999 to 2005, global emissions from fossil fuel and cement production increased at a rate of roughly 3% yr–1. Human activities contribute to climate change by causing changes in Earth’s atmosphere in the amounts of greenhouse gases, aerosols (small particles), and cloudiness. The largest known contribution comes from the burning of fossil fuels, which releases carbon dioxide gas to the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases and aerosols affect climate by altering incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared (thermal) radiation that are part of Earth’s energy balance. Changing the atmospheric abundance or properties of these gases and particles can lead to a warming or cooling of the climate system. Since the start of the industrial era (about 1750), the overall effect of human activities on climate has been a warming influence. The human impact on climate during this era greatly exceeds that due to known changes in natural processes, such as solar changes and volcanic eruptions. What is radiative forcing? The influence of a factor that can cause climate change, such as a greenhouse gas, is often evaluated in terms of its radiative forcing. Radiative forcing is a measure of how the energy balance of the Earth-atmosphere system is influenced when factors that aff ect climate are altered. The word radiative arises because these factors change the balance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared radiation within the Earth’s atmosphere. This radiative balance controls the Earth’s surface temperature. The term forcing is used to indicate that Earth’s radiative balance is being pushed away from its normal state. Radiative forcing is usually quantified as the ‘rate of energy change per unit area of the globe as measured at the top of the atmosphere’, and is expressed in units of ‘Watts per square metre’ (see Figure 2). When radiative forcing from a factor or group of factors is evaluated as positive, the energy of the Earth-atmosphere system will ultimately increase, leading to a warming of the system. In contrast, for a negative radiative forcing, the energy will ultimately decrease, leading to a cooling of the system. Important challenges for climate scientists are to identify all the factors that aff ect climate and the mechanisms by which they exert a forcing, to quantify the radiative forcing of each factor and to evaluate the total radiative forcing from the group of factors.
Pangloss Posted December 17, 2007 Posted December 17, 2007 The green is the IPCC. If someone has valid, scientific objections, they should make them. Then why didn't you, personally, object to Lockheed's statement above that the IPCC is wrong and human contribution is a proven, demonstrable fact? The answer is that human contribution is politically correct on this board, and challenging it is not. It's okay for one side to disagree with the IPCC, but not the other. So much for limiting the discussion to the scientific facts. Here, watch him do it again, and again go unchallenged by the politically correct side of this community: You said that human contribution to climate change and/or global warming is not proven' date=' which flies in the face of what I know to be true. Humans do indeed have a significant effect on the climate and the atmospheric content of the atmosphere. [/quote'] Lockheed, you're saying something different from what you said before. You've amended your position from human contribution is THE cause of global warming to human contribution is A cause to global warming. Since I agree with the position that human contribution is A cause of global warming we have no argument, you and I. But I note, again, that you changed your position, nobody challenged you on it, and you've proven MY point that politically correct viewpoints are supported here and politically incorrect viewpoints are not.
iNow Posted December 17, 2007 Posted December 17, 2007 Pangloss - Maybe a new thread is in order? If it stays here, I'm going to slam you for all of your strawmen, false dichotomies, and appeals rooted in logical fallacy.
SkepticLance Posted December 17, 2007 Posted December 17, 2007 There is an awful lot of hot air being released here, and to very little effect. First : proving that global warming is caused by human action. Let's not get into a tizz about anything that includes the word 'proof'. In science, nothing is proved, as we should all know. However, that does not been we cannot accept something to be considered a good model of reality, until more evidence shows otherwise. I would suggest that we all avoid this nonsense by agreeing that human action, increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, over the past 30 years is a good model of the cause of global warming over that same period. That way we get around the impossibility of 'proof'. To bombus Your statement that Lomborg must be wrong is a reflection of the almost certainty that you have not read him. I actually introduced the example you note in a new thread on this forum some time ago, and asked members if they could come up with examples of species that had been made extinct purely by habitat loss. No-one could. I can list from memory any number of species that have gone extinct for one major reason only, when that reason is overhunting/overfishing by humans, or when the reason is introduction of an alien species into the environment. Trying to list species that have gone extinct for the dominant reason that their habitat has been destroyed (say by deforestation) is an almost impossibility. I am sure there are examples, but they are few and far between. Thus, for Lomborg to say that habitat loss is a minor cause of extinction is actually quite correct. Bombus, I strongly suggest you read Lomborg before you criticise him. His work is meticulously researched. His bibliography is massive. Everything he says is supported by references. The fact that you do not like his conclusions does not make him wrong.
iNow Posted December 17, 2007 Posted December 17, 2007 I would suggest that we all avoid this nonsense by agreeing that human action, increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, over the past 30 years is a good model of the cause of global warming over that same period. That way we get around the impossibility of 'proof'. Agreed, with the exception that I see zero reason to limit the dataset to the past 30 years.
SkepticLance Posted December 17, 2007 Posted December 17, 2007 To iNow If you go back more than 30 years, say to 1941, you get a period of net global cooling. It is something of a complication, to say the least, to talk about human action causing global warming, when the world is actually cooling. From about 1941 to about 1966, the world cooled down by 0.2 C. From about 1966 to about 1976, the world temperature bounced up and down a bit but did not increase overall. After 1976, there was a 30 year period of steady warming (ignoring the minor fluctuations up and down). This is the 30 year period I was referring to.
swansont Posted December 17, 2007 Posted December 17, 2007 Then why didn't you, personally, object to Lockheed's statement above that the IPCC is wrong and human contribution is a proven, demonstrable fact? You mean the response to this? Human contribution to global warming, when all is said and done, is not proven, and the evidence consists of statistical correlations and small-scale cause-effect extrapolations. The reason I didn't is that you had, by the context, either defined "proven" to be what scientists would normally say "has lots of supporting evidence." or were using it in the context of "deductively proven" which means it's just a semantic game showing equivocation; I assume you know that science is inductive and nothing is ever deductively proven, so I also assume you meant the former and not the latter. In that context, the IPCC says "There is very high confidence that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming" where "very high confidence" is defined to mean a 9 out of 10 chance of being correct. So which statement is more correct? According to the report, the human cause of warming is proven or not proven? The answer is that human contribution is politically correct on this board, and challenging it is not. It's okay for one side to disagree with the IPCC, but not the other. So much for limiting the discussion to the scientific facts. Here, watch him do it again, and again go unchallenged by the politically correct side of this community: Lockheed, you're saying something different from what you said before. You've amended your position from human contribution is THE cause of global warming to human contribution is A cause to global warming. You'll have to produce the quote where Lockheed says the first part of this. I can't find it.
bombus Posted December 17, 2007 Posted December 17, 2007 To bombus Your statement that Lomborg must be wrong is a reflection of the almost certainty that you have not read him. I actually introduced the example you note in a new thread on this forum some time ago, and asked members if they could come up with examples of species that had been made extinct purely by habitat loss. No-one could. You (and Lomborg) were totally blown out of the water in that thread, but just wouldn't accept it. I can list from memory any number of species that have gone extinct for one major reason only, when that reason is overhunting/overfishing by humans, or when the reason is introduction of an alien species into the environment. Introduction of an alien species IS HABITAT LOSS! Why can't you understand that simple point!? Trying to list species that have gone extinct for the dominant reason that their habitat has been destroyed (say by deforestation) is an almost impossibility. The Chinese River Dolphin is the latest. Many others are on the brink but kept from going extinct because of 'artificial' conservation effort. Many others were all but destroyed by habitat loss but some other factor was the final nail in the coffin. Either way, you are wrong. I am sure there are examples, but they are few and far between. Because of huge conservation effort. Thus, for Lomborg to say that habitat loss is a minor cause of extinction is actually quite correct. Maybe, but it's totally incorrect for one to infer from that statement that habitat loss is not the greatest threat to species. I'd actually disagree with Lomborg on that point as well though. Bombus, I strongly suggest you read Lomborg before you criticise him. His work is meticulously researched. His bibliography is massive. Everything he says is supported by references. Which he misuses due to his basic misunderstanding of science. The fact that you do not like his conclusions does not make him wrong. SkepticLance, Lomborg is a fool who, due to his lack of a scientific grounding is totally incapable of interpreting the data in a meaningful way. Like I have said in past threads, using Lomborg's logic, guns have never killed anyone, bullets have never killed anyone, blood loss has never killed anyone, 'cos it's all down to a lack of oxygen to the brain. Really, SkepticLance, Lomborg is WRONG WRONG and thrice WRONG! If you think he's correct I suggest you read more scientific literature, 'cos you obviously have not read enough if you can be fooled by Lomborg's smoke and mirrors.
SkepticLance Posted December 17, 2007 Posted December 17, 2007 To bombus, re Lomborg. First : Hav you read his book? If not, your arguments actually mean very little. You said : "You (and Lomborg) were totally blown out of the water in that thread, but just wouldn't accept it" Actually no. Some examples were offered. Each and every one was of an extinction which had several causes, and habitat loss was not in any case the primary cause, with the possible exception of the Yangtze River dolphin, which was probably mainly killed by water pollution. However, even in that case, there were other factors, such as the large number of dolphins killed by nets in that river. You also said : "Introduction of an alien species IS HABITAT LOSS! Why can't you understand that simple point!?" You are now trying to win a debate by arbitrarily altering definitions. Habitat loss is when the habitat is gone. Alien species are not loss of habitat. They are a new, added factor. Not a loss of habitat. You could use your altered definition to say each and every cause of extinction is habitat loss. If people arrive and hunt an animal to extinction, that is habitat loss. If a new disease causes an extinction, that is habitat loss. Sorry bombus. That tactic is cheating. Here in New Zealand, the native thrush is extinct. The cause is predation by introduced rats and stoats. But its habitat remains. It lives in South Island rain forest. The South Island rain forest is still there, so the habitat is not lost. Its extinction was not caused by habitat loss. You also said "SkepticLance, Lomborg is a fool who, due to his lack of a scientific grounding is totally incapable of interpreting the data in a meaningful way." Lomborg has never claimed to be a scientist. He is an associate professor of statistics at a Danish University of Aarhus, and is also trained as an economist. He is far from stupid. He is actually rather smart, as his Ph.D. kind of testifies. His research for his book was meticulous, and his conclusions follow directly from the papers and studies he refers to. He is not alone in the stance he took. Professor Julian Simon was the first person to publicise the data showing that the global environment was not all some kind of disaster story. Numerous others has also written to demonstrate the same. However, good news is never acceptable by environmentalists, and people ignore the facts to concentrate on the dogma. I suggest you read Lomborg's book.
bombus Posted December 18, 2007 Posted December 18, 2007 To bombus, re Lomborg.First : Hav you read his book? If not, your arguments actually mean very little. Nope. My arguments mean more than Lomborg's. And i restate that you (and Lomborg) were totally blown out of the water in that thread, but just wouldn't accept it. Actually no. Some examples were offered. Each and every one was of an extinction which had several causes, and habitat loss was not in any case the primary cause, with the possible exception of the Yangtze River dolphin, which was probably mainly killed by water pollution. However, even in that case, there were other factors, such as the large number of dolphins killed by nets in that river. The other factors would have had little impact if the habitat had remained intact. You also said : "Introduction of an alien species IS HABITAT LOSS! Why can't you understand that simple point!?" You are now trying to win a debate by arbitrarily altering definitions. Habitat loss is when the habitat is gone. Alien species are not loss of habitat. They are a new, added factor. Not a loss of habitat. You could use your altered definition to say each and every cause of extinction is habitat loss. If people arrive and hunt an animal to extinction, that is habitat loss. If a new disease causes an extinction, that is habitat loss. Sorry bombus. That tactic is cheating. Here in New Zealand, the native thrush is extinct. The cause is predation by introduced rats and stoats. But its habitat remains. It lives in South Island rain forest. The South Island rain forest is still there, so the habitat is not lost. Its extinction was not caused by habitat loss. Yaaaawwn. As you are a microbiologist may I suggest that you have simply not studied enough ecology. You appear not to understand what constitutes a habitat. Thusly, you are finding it hard to judge when a habitat is lost - just like Lomborg. You also said "SkepticLance, Lomborg is a fool who, due to his lack of a scientific grounding is totally incapable of interpreting the data in a meaningful way." Lomborg has never claimed to be a scientist. He is an associate professor of statistics at a Danish University of Aarhus, and is also trained as an economist. He is far from stupid. He is actually rather smart, as his Ph.D. kind of testifies. His research for his book was meticulous, and his conclusions follow directly from the papers and studies he refers to. If you can get a BSc, you can get a PhD. It's just extended study. It doesn't require any more brains. His research is NOT meticulous at all. He is like those creationists who meticulously 'research' scientific papers to 'prove' that evolution is a myth. They cannot interpret what they are referring to either. He is not alone in the stance he took. He is effectively alone. And there's a very good reason why - he's WRONG! Professor Julian Simon was the first person to publicise the data showing that the global environment was not all some kind of disaster story. YET!!! Numerous others has also written to demonstrate the same. However, good news is never acceptable by environmentalists, and people ignore the facts to concentrate on the dogma. Total nonsense. I suggest you read Lomborg's book. Ho ho ho. May I suggest you read the Bible. It's the word of God you know, and PROVES that evolution is a myth. (It makes more sense than Lomborg!) SkepticLance, I am sorry, but IMO you are barking up the wrong tree if you think Lomborg is anything but a good statitician, and you know what they're like - if I had my head in a fire and my feet in a bucket of ice, statistically, I'd be OK!
iNow Posted December 18, 2007 Posted December 18, 2007 If you go back more than 30 years, say to 1941, you get a period of net global cooling. It is something of a complication, to say the least, to talk about human action causing global warming, when the world is actually cooling. From about 1941 to about 1966, the world cooled down by 0.2 C. From about 1966 to about 1976, the world temperature bounced up and down a bit but did not increase overall. After 1976, there was a 30 year period of steady warming (ignoring the minor fluctuations up and down). This is the 30 year period I was referring to. CO2 is only ONE forcing factor, and despite relatively high CO2 during a given epoch, there may be other factors causing the overall temperature trends to go down. Essentially, it's not improbable that while atmospheric CO2 was up other forcing factors were "out weighing" that impact and driving overall temperature trends downward. Basically, it's misleading to think along those lines... ("how is it that temperatures went down when CO2 concentrations went up? how do you explain THAT mister smarty pants scientist person?")... because other factors contribute to temperature change. Just because the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was high while temperatures decreased does not mean that CO2 wasn't a forcing factor. Also, just because there were periods where temperature went down does NOT mean that human concentrations to atmospheric CO2 were not driving global mean temperatures upward. When viewing this data, and looking at the information, try to recall that temperature change is due to multiple contributions from several different sources. These sources influence the temperature both up and down, depending on the details of that force and it's intensity, all coupled with what else is happening during the time in question. It's the cumulative effect of all of the forces that dictates what temperature does. The size of the forcing and the size of the temperature change during a given time period will not, in general, align completely, and this is because of contributions from other factors. This was ALSO already demonstrated clearly to you in another thread (the one I linked above regarding your attack on the models). So... I repeat. I can see ZERO reason to limit the dataset to the past 30 years.
Reaper Posted December 18, 2007 Posted December 18, 2007 So much for limiting the discussion to the scientific facts. Beautiful. Here, watch him do it again, and again go unchallenged by the politically correct side of this community: Lockheed, you're saying something different from what you said before. You've amended your position from human contribution is THE cause of global warming to human contribution is A cause to global warming. Since I agree with the position that human contribution is A cause of global warming we have no argument, you and I. But I note, again, that you changed your position, nobody challenged you on it, and you've proven MY point that politically correct viewpoints are supported here and politically incorrect viewpoints are not. What are you talking about? I addressed your (erronous) claim just fine. Your the one making a strawman here. And besides, I hate politics.
Recommended Posts