Carbon is life.
I'm not sure what is giving you difficulty Tonigton?
I agree the planet is getting warm.
I agree that carbon is contributing a role. Like wearing a blanket in the hot sun.
I disagree carbon is the reason for GW and, in fact, it is provable that it isn't by statistical analysis.
I disagree that curbing carbon output will stop global warming - the reason is simple; a bunch of planets are warming up, the odds: 1 in 36 trillion. That means GW isn't being caused by us. It's just a fact buddy - get over it.
Also a paper in the journal Climate Research, 2001;which identified uncertainties in climate energizing that were 10 (that is TEN) times greater than CO2 emissions. And pointed to errors in the IPCC which is used to predict GW.
Now when I combine my probability with the insignificance of CO2, I am left knowing that Al Gore is full of crap - his message was political, hyperbole and bad science.
There is a correlation between carbon and warming based on the Venus studies which is indisputable. Carbon will warm an atmosphere but that doesn't mean carbon is the reason the atmosphere is warming. Is any of this sinking into that little pea brain of yours?
You can find a correlation between people who wear helmets and break their arms. In places where helmets are required the incidence of helmets and arm breaks increase significantly. Does that really mean wearing a helmet increases your chances of breaking your arm? Does the law increase your chance of breaking your arm? Or is this an irrelevant correlation? Or is the cause and effect a coincidence? The correlation bogus? Just like your GW.
I'm not sure what is giving you difficulty Tonigton?
I agree the planet is getting warm.
I agree that carbon is contributing a role. Like wearing a blanket in the hot sun.
I disagree carbon is the reason for GW and, in fact, it is provable that it isn't by statistical analysis.
I disagree that curbing carbon output will stop global warming - the reason is simple; a bunch of planets are warming up, the odds: 1 in 36 trillion. That means GW isn't being caused by us. It's just a fact buddy - get over it.
Also a paper in the journal Climate Research, 2001;which identified uncertainties in climate energizing that were 10 (that is TEN) times greater than CO2 emissions. And pointed to errors in the IPCC which is used to predict GW.
Now when I combine my probability with the insignificance of CO2, I am left knowing that Al Gore is full of crap - his message was political, hyperbole and bad science.
There is a correlation between carbon and warming based on the Venus studies which is indisputable. Carbon will warm an atmosphere but that doesn't mean carbon is the reason the atmosphere is warming. Is any of this sinking into that little pea brain of yours?
You can find a correlation between people who wear helmets and break their arms. In places where helmets are required the incidence of helmets and arm breaks increase significantly. Does that really mean wearing a helmet increases your chances of breaking your arm? Does the law increase your chance of breaking your arm? Or is this an irrelevant correlation? Or is the cause and effect a coincidence? The correlation bogus? Just like your GW.
I notice you still aren't answering my damn question, no good answer?
YOUR carbon emissions damage MY property. Why am I being forced to pay for your littering?
I think this topic is too difficult for you Tonington.
Carbon is destructive.
Nothing like a friendly debate. How about you meet me in the -- section for more formalized debate? We could ask some members to be the judges panel, or maybe the moderators would be up for it.
If you think you're up for it, we can discuss what the parameters of the debate will be.
I thought we just had one? I don't require anyone acting in the capacity of judge. I'm well aware of how this debate turned out.
Quote has been trimmed, See full post:
I'm growing tired of repeating myself. My evidence is incontrovertible and I can't understand why anyone would have trouble with that. I can only conclude that is because I haven't explained it well enough or you don't understand it. You haven't once given an argument as to how my probability theory is wrong except you think it is, has to be, and despite the odds it is happening; so thats your proof which is only proof GW is wrong; so IMO that isn't an argument but wish thinking.
Your evidence is correlated data which is great except there are too many variables that invalidate it; not the least of which is probability. Also carbon is one of the least energizing variables so why focus on it? Because Al Gore (inventor of the internet) thinks so? That just isn't good enough for me.
There is a great article in the latest issue of Skeptic called "A Climate Of belief." The author thinks very much as I do and I highly recommend it. Like me he doesn't doubt GW but he doubts the popular believed cause of it. He has different reasons but his and mine make a pretty concrete case that carbon as the cause is complete whooey.
I thought we just had one? I don't require anyone acting in the capacity of judge. I'm well aware of how this debate turned out.
I'm growing tired of repeating myself. My evidence is incontrovertible and I can't understand why anyone would have trouble with that.
I can only conclude that is because I haven't explained it well enough or you don't understand it. You haven't once given an argument as to how my probability theory is wrong except you think it is, has to be, and despite the odds it is happening; so thats your proof which is only proof GW is wrong; so IMO that isn't an argument but wish thinking.
Your evidence is correlated data which is great except there are too many variables that invalidate it; not the least of which is probability. Also carbon is one of the least energizing variables so why focus on it? Because Al Gore (inventor of the internet) thinks so? That just isn't good enough for me.
There is a great article in the latest issue of Skeptic called "A Climate Of belief." The author thinks very much as I do and I highly recommend it. Like me he doesn't doubt GW but he doubts the popular believed cause of it. He has different reasons but his and mine make a pretty concrete case that carbon as the cause is complete whooey.
How can I argue against something which has no substance?
I have given you no evidence, I've been asking for yours. So far you have: warming on two other planets, and a statistic without supporting data. That isn't good enough for me, and it's not good enough for science.
The opening to that article is flawed. Frank says:
The claim that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for the current warming of Earth climate is scientifically insupportable because climate models are unreliable.
You don't need a model to analyze the current data we have. You use a model for projections, which is an entirely different exercise. That's called a bare assertion fallacy. No where in his tripe does he provide evidence that the theory of human caused climate change is dependent on model results.
In any event, our knowledge of greenhouse gases is not solely dependent on models. We have spectroscopic measurements of the gases in our atmosphere, satellites measuring the radiation at the surface and all other layers of the atmosphere, we have detailed records in paleo-climate which give us good estimates of climate sensitivity, we have feedback mechanisms that both amplify and dampen the effect, and we have laboratory measurements of the heat trapping properties of greenhouse gases.
His assertion is a losing point to begin with because of the language he uses. He has no caveats. Some models perform very poorly, other models perform very well. Are we going to throw out the models used in economics as well because sometimes they're wrong?
His whole premise is that current climate science lives and dies by the models, which is blatantly false.
Illusions of grandeur.......Ignorant rantings
I thought you didn't understand probability. Now I see I was right.
Actually it's good enough for a lot of scientists. Remember the issue isn't whether the world is warming but why. There is no evidence except correlated data and piss poor computer models that over a century are accurate to +/- 100 c!!! You'd have a better chance of prediction by throwing darts.
Your wrong...In order to substantiate the correlated data an accurate model is required or an experiment which verifies predictions. So far there isn't one; so to say X is because of Y without any proof just correlated data isn't just bad science it's medieval! Why not say radio waves is the cause? Certainly they have been increasing too. How about roads? Why not? I'm sure there are more and more roads every year. I'm sure there is a correlation.
That doesn't matter. It is irrelevant.
There are many factors far more significant to global temperature than carbon - like natural cycles that are revealed in our planets history. Green house gases are very important on Venus (where your pet theories were discovered) but lucky for us we live on Earth.
I wish the GW models were anywhere near as accurate as economic models. That would be a dream come true!
Not true. Without the models all you have is correlated data which isn't evidence it's just really terribly lousy science.
I'm sure there is a correlation between animal populations and GW, roads and GW, maybe hats are less in fashion? Might that be a reason?
When you consider so many variables are more significant than carbon and the odds don't favour three planets and moons (maybe more) simultaneously warming independently of the sun in the same decade; it becomes pretty obvious (to me anyway) that carbon isn't the problem.
It seems very reasonable to me that since the time of Jesus until now we have had favourable conditions for civilization that our civilizations would explode as they have. That accounts for the carbon not the warming. We are probably just returning to a previous condition.
I'm not saying we should pollute but I do think it's a mistake to destroy our economies based on correlated data and we are an awfully long way away from being like Venus.
What is your fascination with correlations? The depth of your statistical knowledge appears to be as profound as your understanding of logic and climate science for that matter.
You're deeply ignorant about models too, likely from reading things like that magazine article and accepting it without question.
Just to show you how little you know, being accurate to +/- 100°C would mean that the model projection misses within a margin of 200°C. Many of the models projected out to 2100 are in the range of 2-4.5°C of added heat given that the status quo continues. How the hell can they be off by 100°C in either direction? The only way they could be is if something catastrophic happens, and then the model is no longer a valid tool because the conditions have been changed from that which the model assumes. Asinine
Again, it seems the only statistic you know is correlation, which is the most basic, so I'm not surprised.
Of course it matters. Only an ignorant fool would say such a thing. These are the end results of many of those experiments that you say don't exist to verify observations and predictions. It's entirely relevant because you have it in your mind that without global climate models, a climate scientist can't analyze data and find causality, and weight it accordingly. I doubt you've even heard of principle components. Fool.
They were not discovered on Venus, Venus simply confirmed predictions associated with greenhouse gases. Radiative physics was being used well before we had measurements of the Venusian atmosphere.
Hah, some models maybe. Others not so much. What you don't seem to be capable of understanding is that not all models in any one discipline are cut from the same cloth. You're quite happy to generalize and lump them all together.
So you continue to say, but that doesn't make it true. I now know that's the only statistic you know, and that you've read very little on the statistics used in climate science. If you had of said that once, I might have suspected that you were just being disingenuous. But three times now in this post alone?
You're about half a decade at least behind. Fun with stats, global warming is correlated with pirates and Republican Senators. But there is no causative relationship is there? If you read any papers from say the American Geophysical Union, or Geophysical Research Letters, or Science, or Nature, you'd know that no paper is submitted to show a relationship in climate with only correlations. Every scientist worth their salt knows why not to do that, it won't be accepted and published for starters. Every statistics student knows this after one month. Try to keep up.
they don't have the same symptoms at all. You're comparing apples to oranges.
That's one part of it. More important is human technology and knowledge.
It's far worse for our economies to do nothing.
Think on Zzarchov's questions. It's an extension of the precautionary principle.
How, You make a statement but don't show it.
Mind explaining where THAT number comes from?
Also, you still aren't saying whats warming all those planets.
Its not the sun, because then EVERY planet would be warming. But only some are..
Yes Al Gore is crap, but he isn't a scientist either, but where are you pulling your probability from. Cause it seems like thin air.
So your logic is, adding carbon warms the atmosphere. We are adding carbon, but that isn't why our atmosphere is warming?
Your lying to yourself. EVEN IF (big if), its not the main reason its warming, its a contributing factor. Your house may not be burning because your throwing gasoline on it, but if you don't want it scorched to ash, you should still probably stop.
Depends, if there is a scientific process that shows say, the helmet design in question blocks vision and causes more car accidents, then yes, it could be causing broken arms.
thats why we have a scientific method.
I notice you still aren't answering my damn question, no good answer?
SF, here's a few fairly simple question for you, since the back and forth quoting is just basically spinning tires. What did you like best about Pat Frank's article? Anything in particular? What details, if there were any, left you with some feeling of disagreement?
I think the answers to these questions will be quite illuminating...
Illuminating how? Your wondering why I won't abandon reason and just accept the popular opinion? I have already explained why.
Illuminating how? Your wondering why I won't abandon reason and just accept the popular opinion? I have already explained why.
A theory is garbage if it can not make predictions and it is worse garbage if it is the most unlikely explanation that can't make predictions - it is as simple as that.
GW looks great but it doesn't work. It isn't the reason we're warming. It's just that simple. I would accept it no problem if it we're right, but it isn't. Carbon is only a factor and a small one at that.
This is just another "Y2K bug."
There are thousands of scientist perusing string theory. String theory has not made one prediction - it is unproven. It is a great looking theory so thousands of physicists have dedicated their lives to it but that doesn't make it right - it means they like it. String theory has one thing going for it: its probably right, which is a hell of a lot more than can be said for the GW theory.
I'm asking you about the details, of which you are always scant, and when asked for them, are deflected with more of your $hit.
Illuminating because I have high doubts that you can pick out the implications of what he has said.
lol I'll give you two hints, initial value problem versus a boundary value problem, and how to calculate the uncertainty of the radiative forcing for a global model.
But then what does Frank actually know about climate, have you seen his CV? He's discussing radiation physics, and he is a chemist.
I suppose you would be comfortable with sending a kid to see a dentist when they need to see a heart surgeon?
That is why his article is in a magazine, and not the peer review where he has earned some respect.
Most people I know of have no idea what the difference between theories, hypotheses, and laws are, and this ignorance makes them say the silliest things sometimes.
WTF is your problem?
You don't doubt broken models and improbable events but you doubt the scientific method and cling to correlated data?
Read it again. He clearly points out that people like you are obviously "cooking" the model. There are factors far more (by a factor of 10) important than carbon. He isn't saying they haven't figured out how to make carbon more important LMAO!!!! You just don't get it at all do you?
He understands both the scientific method and the mathematics of the model which is a whole f**k of a lot more than you do.
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand high school level mathematics.
LMAO!!!! Just as I thought The whole GW issue is some kind of popularity contest for you, where you care neither for method or fact; correlation and consensus is enough for you! HA! I care only for the truth.
He has my total respect for being one of a small handful of scientists with some objectivity and not just jumping on the GW band waggon.
That's what I have understood so far.
Another sort that says things that make me laugh sometimes are the anti-bandwagon bandwagon members. lol
Probably the arrogance of an ignorant fool.
Get out from your straw man world. I've never once mentioned any correlation.
Unlike you, some people (myself included) can debate the words and ideas of other posters. I don't have to make up things you've said. The record speaks for itself.
Is that what I said?
Oh, you think so? I know that you can't model the climate with a linear model. It's a highly non-linear system. I know that uncertainty doesn't propogate in the manner Frank explains, think back to the 200°C range he gives for accuracy, both laughable and idiotic.
I know that you can't use an initial value model like Frank does, because the climate system is not closed, hence why there exists no monotonically increasing temperature in any model output for global climate, and why there exists no monotonically increasing temperature record in the observations on this planet.
I guess I've been doing it backwards all the while
Peer review isn't a popularity contest, it's where your academic equals evaluate your work,
He has your respect because he thinks like you. That is not very objective.
So you don't even understand the data in your own arguments!! LMAO!!!
Um... yes...
um.. it was 100°C range. Maybe you shouldn't throw the word idiot around so easily, you know, people in glass houses and all that.
I know it! They were handing out PhDs to anyone 4000 years ago!
It would explain some things. It's a good theory, do you have any proof or just a correlation?
And so your going to $hit on this guy because he wrote for the Skeptic?
That doesn't seem like a straw man to you?
Actually it is exactly because he is being objective that I respect him.
Why can't you get it through your thick skull that I don't have anything against GW except that it is wrong?
