The concept isn't that hard Anna - try looking at it this way.
When your hair gets longer, does it occur solely because you cut it?.. Is that the solitary mechanism that is primarily responsible for for the hair growth?
AGW Grudge Match
- Thread starter Slim Chance
- Start date
The concept isn't that hard Anna - try looking at it this way.
When your hair gets longer, does it occur solely because you cut it?.. Is that the solitary mechanism that is primarily responsible for for the hair growth?
Very well... I will be forwarding info that details the sources of natural CO2 and the relativity surrounding natural and anthropogenic sources.
I forgot to mention:
Nor are anthropogenic sources of GHG's (as far as my position is concerned).
The point I made to Anna is intended to illustrate the real lack of (complete) understanding that we have in this area. To assess an over simplified cause-effect relationship (ie. hair length) and suggest that all systems are that simple is, well, simple... Fact is, Anna knows exactly why her hair has changed lengths, she (likely) consciously made it happen - we, on the other hand, cannot make such confident and knowledged-based inferences.
Nor are anthropogenic sources of GHG's (as far as my position is concerned).
The point I made to Anna is intended to illustrate the real lack of (complete) understanding that we have in this area. To assess an over simplified cause-effect relationship (ie. hair length) and suggest that all systems are that simple is, well, simple... Fact is, Anna knows exactly why her hair has changed lengths, she (likely) consciously made it happen - we, on the other hand, cannot make such confident and knowledged-based inferences.
No, I want your model. I want to know how you can isolate what the cause of the warming is. Your favoured cause has to explain all of the past glaciations and interglacials. No more "natural cycles."
I want a concrete case laid out. If you follow sequentially the references I gave, and the addendum you asked for, I have covered these bases:
- anthropogenic sources of industry are causing the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases to rise.
- outgoing radiation in the spectra of these gases is observed to be reduced.
- the flux of radiation at the top of the atmosphere is showing a net positive (more coming in than going out).
- the returning radiation has been observed.
- the atmosphere shows evidence of an enhanced greenhouse effect (lower atmosphere warms, upper cools).
- the analysis of multiple data sets of multiple factors confirms the existence of an anthropogenic signal.
Now, let us see what kind of model you can advance that explains this.
lmao After Les already stated that climatology is a relatively young science and even the experts cannot agree on various aspects of it, I think the interested people here got the idea. And in spite of even the experts not agreeing, certain people, yourself included, state unequivocally that its all natural. To me that's just hilarious.
Sorry, I don't make it happen. It happens anyway. I can stop it growing, or delay it, but unless I perform an action it will grow. Hence the idea of cutting it. So apparently you can't even grasp the simple concept that hair grows pretty much regardless of anything, and yet you make fun of the idea and call it simple. tsk tsk
It was your example and opened itself to that exact style of response.
Fair enough... That said, as a fledgling science, it is highly inappropriate to set global economic policy and global regulation considering that we are unclear on the issue.
Sound fair?
Learn to read already.. I have bent over backwards in clearly stating that there is a fundamental lack of knowledge in this area... I have simply stated that it has occurred in the past without the influence of humanity and never suggested that anthropogenic input does not have a negative influence.
You see only what you want to see and interpret my posts to accommodate your pre-conceived notion of my position... Go read the start of this thread and you'll see that Ron/Regina even corrected you on this point.
As far as your hair is concerned, the message that you should take away from my comment is that you offered-up an overly simplistic cause-effect relationship and tried to extrapolate it to something as complex as the climate... The answer you got was deserving if not muted.
According to you. *shrugs*
I said that a long time ago. Big deal.
lmao Jam it up your kumquat already, chica.
:roll: But it's all natural and anthropological causes are negligible; or to put it in your terms "Insignificant".
blah blah blah......
So? You still think I can make my hair grow. lmao That's freakin funny.
.... So, why did you even bring it up then?
Finally learned to read then, eh?
How fitting... The very mentality that has gotten you schooled on a few occasions now.
Let's see.... Nutrition, vitamin intake, personal hygiene, health/lifestyle choices that impact overall health.
Unless someone has a gun to your head - these are individual choices/actions that will strongly impact (hair) growth.
Clear now?
No changing the rules now...
I have never opened myself up to the claim that I can pin-point the cause, let alone provide a model. I deliberately assumed a very generalized position that you had no objection towards.
The initial foundation of my argument is that warming AND cooling have occurred in past episodes... Unless you are planning to refute the factual evidence of prior climate episodes, then my submission is proof-positive that something - a mechanism, a cycle or a combination of many - has, is and will operate... I am forced to revisit the historical record simply because you are trying to wiggle out of recognizing the importance of those factual events... In the end, I don't know how much more concrete you can get?
You, on the other hand, have made indirect claim to possessing a fully functioning and complete knowledge of the climatic "system"... Really, in order to assess causation to an anthropogenic source(s), you must have that knowledge, without it, well, your statements about AGW are sheer speculation, theory and conjecture at best.
Interestingly, this also necessitates a complete understanding of all related (secondary) mechanisms AND and complete understanding of the dynamic interchange of the aforementioned areas... Does this knowledge truly exist?.. Are you privy to this knowledge?
So what... A mosquito that farts also causes the ppm's of ghg's to rise.. The question that you consistently evade is "Is it enough to alter the system such that it's elimination will "correct" the situation?"
Further, relative to what? The greenie position deliberately excludes the total assumed source concentrations of both anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic sources.
Sure.. What's the cause of the reduction?
Ironically, you, yourself offered a graph that illustrated the lower stratospheric anomalies linked to volcanic eruptions... Significant spikes in the graphs at those periods.
You are hoping and guessing that the net effect is the result of anthropogenic sources and ignoring the very sources that you accidentally provided as the weaken your own position.
... And... Again, what's the cause?.. See above
I'm not questioning this data as far as an observation is concerned, but to leap to the conclusion that it is anthropogenic is simply a manifestation of your need and desire to believe it - nothing more.
Again, so what?... What's the source? A source that you can specifically identify in the face of all other sources. I'll be posting the studies that determine that anthropogenic sources are a tiny fraction of the totality.
Is it enough to significantly alter the system such that it's elimination will "correct" the situation.
How many times do I have to state that the science/technology/knowledge does not exist to fully explain the system, let alone develop a model? I have never once stated or suggested that I (or anyone) possess this potential. Ultimately, this is why I point to historical episodes - they are factual and they are reality... They are not in need of statistical modeling that require compensatory techniques or margins of error - they are fact.
You did. If you had told us you have senile dementia we could make allowances for you, you know.
Still waiting for you to post something worth reading. Till then, your posts are only worth a cursory glance, And you still haven't shown where human interference is insignificant.
You think so? So you are deluded as well as demented. Interesting.
Sorry, those only aid growth. Little things called dermal papillae reproduce cells and form them into hair shafts. It's a biological function that humans have only limited control over. Humans cannot make hair grow. So yes, I am very clear.
Judging by your knowledge of biological science, we have to wonder if you are just as inept with climate science. Either way you are still hilarious.
Last edited:
If you can't propose a model then you don't have anything. You just have belief in something, and you have no evidence.
Straw man. I never claimed we know everything. We don't need to know everything.
No, we don't really need to know everything to assess causation. I have given evidence, backed by physics. You can't explain anything, you prefer the comfortable area of vague assertions that you don't have to prove in the face of observations which we know are consistent with the radiative physics of greenhouse gases.
It necessitates no such thing. Seriously, where do you get this stuff from, and what is your background training in science?
I mean this position you are setting up is absurd. If we have to know everything about a dynamic system to test hypotheses, to make inferences about what is happening, to establish causality, then science would have made no progress whatsoever.
It's patently absurd. We don't know everything about anything, and likely never will. Does that mean we can't create new technology? Does that mean we can't cure new diseases and old ones? If you follow this through you should be able to see how nonsensical your position is...
Oh, don't get your panties all in a bunch Anna... I guess cheap shots are all you have to offer to anything.
You stick your foot in your mouth, challenge others' on top of it and then get all in a tizzy when you get schooled.
A belief?.. Seriously?... The geological record doesn't lie Tonnington - I don't need a complex model supported by generous statistical assumptions to make that statement… You, on the other hand must rely on such to develop any traction whatsoever.
Either refute the episodic periods of historical warming/cooling (non-anthropogenic) or get used to the fact that this is an entirely relevant, acceptable and factual base-line.
It’s time that we move on, but you need to make a key decision on the historical front: Accept or refute the premise that the Earth has experienced dramatic climate fluctuations that have been expressed in episodic advances/recessions of glaciers (non-anthropogenic) – the functional component is that the mean global avg. temp has experienced dramatic movements as an expression of a non-anthropogenic mechanism/system – further, this expression has occurred on multiple occasions… What’s your choice?
In addition, I have made it perfectly clear on multiple occasions that the necessary knowledge doesn't exist to develop a comprehensive model. My initial position is that the reversal of the assumed anthropogenic sources were not enough to remedy the assumed position that is “the assumed cause” of GW.
So, possessing a functioning base of knowledge of the climatic system is a strawman, is it?
You are the one proposing causation of GW (anthropogenic) aren't you?... Correct me if I’m wrong, but you’d need to have somewhat of an understanding of the infinite # of individual variables and their dynamic interaction in order to determine causation, right?
To date, you have identified a few mechanisms that are functioning within the system - you'll notice that I haven't refuted their existence. My position has been to quantify those mechanisms within the natural sources (ie. relativity) and seek clarity in the interaction that exists… You have offered nothing remotely close to that end.
But the fact remains, offering up a few points and deciding that this is sufficient to declare a functional knowledge-base of a system that has thousands, tens of thousands (more? - no one really knows) is naive... It is akin to claiming knowledge of how a fan-belt works on a car and deeming that sufficient knowledge to construct an entire engine.
.. But you need to know a helluva lot more… I’ll say it again; Science doesn’t know “what” they don’t know let alone understand those variables that have been identified. I understand and accept this reality. In large part, this is why I refer to macro systemic observations documented in the geological record – they don’t lie.
The evidence you have given to date have no direct correlation to the relative measures of anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic ghg sources.
There is nothing vague about the geological record, it is factual - later today, I will forward a number of "scholarly; peer-reviewed" studies that conclude that natural sources of relevant, natural ghg sources not only exist, but their concentrations (volumes) dwarf those anthropogenic sources (relativity)... (I threw in the scholarly; peer-reviewed element as by your standard, it will make them factual).
I can't even get close to understanding that twisted logic... Basically you’re saying that you don't really need to understand what you're discussing to be capable of delivering expert understanding… Is that about right?
You don't like my base position as you cannot explain it. It doesn’t fit in with your pre-conceived notions and pre-determined outcomes... What's worse, it absolutely defies your presumptions and your central premise... This is the reason that you must paint it as absurd.
You want models developed supported by complex statistical mechanisms that counter the exclusions of info, non-existent sample sizes or base understanding - to you, that is the only "science" you know. What this "absurd" component really represents is reality, fact and repeated on numerous occasions.
You said you 'believe' in your opening statement.
You are way out there...I have posted studies and observations to support my position. You have simply denied them. You're a denier.
Did you understand what a scholarly debate was when I challenged you?
I don't need to refute past episodes. I stipulated earlier that they exist.
I very clearly early on stipulated that the earth has experienced past episodes, but you haven't done anything but spin your tires since then.
You can state all kinds of things. That doesn't make them true.
Without showing any calculations or evidence which would confirm this...
We do possess a functioning base of knowledge of the climate system. The strawman is that in order to make useful predictions, or useful observations, that we must know everything.
Like I said, your position on this is ludicrous. Do you deny that vaccines improve the immune response in patients too? We don't know everything about the human body, or the immune system, but we know enough to say that immunization works.
You are wrong. In fact, you're now using the same argument that scientists for hire used to say smoking tobacco is not a cause of lung cancer.
Here's causality:
1.Greenhouse gases trap radiation, this is a given.
2. We've increased the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases, well documented.
3. The result is a radiative imbalance, the planet warms until the radiation going out equals the radiation coming in. This result follows from the first two points.
That is a causal relationship.
So you dispute the sources of increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? Where do you think it is coming from?
A few points? You addressed only two of my references, which I followed up with more references.
You, have given no references. You talk about quantifying but you haven't shown why the observations I quoted cannot be true.
I'll say again, what you have is a belief.
Read the Chapter on attribution in the IPCC AR4 report, Chapter 9.
Yes...I went further than a correlation, I gave observations supporting a physical explanation, which has a direct causal relationship. If you want a correlation, try it for yourself.
If this is beyond your statistical abilities, someone else has done it for you, here:
Residual Analysis: Statistical Proof of Anthropogenic Global Warming v2.0
What's vague is your causality. You point to the geologic record, despite the fact that we are not talking about a geologic time frame at all. You talk about the geologic record, but you don't identify which cycle it is you think is causing change. You talk about quantifying, yet do none for yourself, let alone cite someone who has.
[quoteI can't even get close to understanding that twisted logic... Basically you’re saying that you don't really need to understand what you're discussing to be capable of delivering expert understanding… Is that about right?[/quote]
No, I'm saying you don't need to know everything about a dynamic system to deliver useful results or inferences about that system. If you think this is twisted logic, then you don't really know how scientific analysis works.
I don't like your position because you state you believe something, then don't give any observations to support your alternative hypothesis. See, what I'm doing is what skeptics do.
I want models which explain reality. You're not proposing anything, which is convenient. Just try...this is getting exceedingly boring.
I guess so. Anything else is lost on you.
Delusions again? Someone schooled me? Must have been Tonnington, you don't have the chalk let alone the blackboard.
&yaaaaaaaaaaaaawns*
All he has is historical evidence to back him up. Humans haven't been around long enough to be certain about the extent of AGW, so there is nothing to compare AGW with except former events. That is hardly a solid basis for the claim that we haven't impacted climate significantly.
So far, we've seen denial and little else. We shouldn't hold our breaths waiting for slim to produce anything else.
So far, we've seen denial and little else. We shouldn't hold our breaths waiting for slim to produce anything else.
Here's a good indication that something unnatural is going on. A record of carbon dioxide from ice cores. The x-axis is years before present, the y-axis atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. Seems well outside the normal envelope for the last ~420,000 years. Yeah....must be a natural cycle, not.
