|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Weather Channel founder calls Global Warming "a scam." | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Silent H responds to me:
quote: True, but misleading. A desert is an area that receives less than 10 inches of precipitation per year (thus making some parts of Antarctica a desert...lots of snow, but it's old snow. Very little new snow falls in the area.) Thus, we should expect that every now and then, there will be years where there is no rain at all. But the rain forest? They're conceptually the opposite of deserts. Where deserts are defined by their lack of rain, rain forests are defined by their lack of dry. While we would expect there to be fluctuations such that some years there isn't as much rain as there was before, we do not expect them to have a year that would classify them as a desert. That would mean something drastic has happened and the rain forest is [I][B]GONE[/i][/b].
quote: Yes. You're trivializing, equivocating, and engaging in the same error as what you are trying to deny: Confusing variation with absence. It is the same logical error creationists use when they try to make the false distinction of "macroevolution" and "microevolution" but in reverse: You are assuming that because there can be variation, then variation of any degree is to be expected.
quote: You do realize that those two sentences contradict each other, yes? If it is a non-natural source, then it is not a "natural" variation. That doesn't make it supernatural, but it does mean that it is being artificially driven. The evidence makes it quite clear that the temperature changes we are seeing are not a natural variation. A single hot year? Yeah, that's not so bizarre. A decade of hottest years on record? A century of hottest years on record? And not a gradual buildup but a sudden spike? That's something else. Your argument is that because things can vary, then they can vary to any degree desired without it being considered unusual.
quote: If one is being trivial, pretending that one is looking only at a single data point, then you're right. However, we aren't dealing with trivial, one-off data points.
quote: Indeed. You are trivializing, engaging in the very fallacy you are trying to deny. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5845 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Can we please keep debate civil? There was no reason for the insulting nature of your response. I certainly was not insulting you.
It is apparent that a miscommunication has been made. Let me try this again, but using your example. It would be true to say that we expect a relatively consistent system (for example rain in a rain forest) to stay within a certain margin. If there is an large change... and that can include up to a total absence... it makes sense to say something out of the ordinary is happening. Given that global temps are increasing, I suppose that could be linked to atmospheric disruptions leading to this unusual occurrence. In this example then the loss of rainfall being a natural occurrence due to the temp rises. However, in theory it is also possible to be linked to something else besides global temp change, which might not be natural process (for a hypothetical say some mean corporation is seeding clouds outside the area and preventing sufficient humidity for rainfall in that area). It is important then to find the link to the rising temps and not something else. Okay so assuming that is found... such a link does NOT allow a conclusion that the raise in temps are not natural. Until the exact factors are found, the temp changes could be primarily natural... or not! In this case we have found that the largest factor is man made sources. But it was from detailed analysis of atmospheric factors, not whether an unusual rainfall event has occurred. In other words one event can have more than one source, hence the event cannot be used to prove either one. And that goes if you have many unusual events. As long as they allow for the same possible sources, no single source is proven. One last time, an unusual event says something has changed, not necessarily what the exact mechanism is. In this case it took finding the atmospheric factors to make that determination. Predictions which would have been true regardless of source of the rising temps cannot tell us what was the cause of those rises. Edited by Silent H, : crucial NOT h "Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fgarb Member (Idle past 5416 days) Posts: 98 From: Naperville, IL Joined: |
Hi guys. If I may jump into the conversation late here ...
I think I would agree with Legend that global warming models have not made many specific predictions that have been verified. Similarly they have not made many specific predictions that have been falsified. Accurate computer models have not been available until recently, and if you make a prediction about what temperature, clouds, CO2 concentrations, etc, will be like ten years from now, you have to wait ten years to see if you are right. This is not a fault of the models, it is a fact of life. That said, it is clear that the warming recently has been very significant, and it is beyond the norm of common natural climate fluctuations. I am not familiar with most of the techniques that are used to reconstruct past temperatures, but here's an easily understood piece of evidence. Plant material that this glacier left behind as it melted was carbon dated to be ~50,000 years old. So over the last 50,000 years the weather was not warm enough to melt this ice until recently. So yes, there are natural variations in the climate, and in the distant past it was warmer than it is today. But climate fluctuations of this magnitude are rare on the time scale of recorded human civilization, and the probability that such a fluctuation just happens to be occuring naturally at the same time as we are pumping vast amounts of heat trapping gasses into the atmosphere seems extremely unlikely. So humans are almost certainly the primary cause of the warming. That's how it seems to me, anyway, though I'm no expert.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5845 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
To clarify, we actually don't know how fast temperature fluctuations can occur naturally. The time frame of our techniques do not allow for a degree of precision to check our recent time frame.
That said it is clearly unusual for recent recorded history, that is while people have been around to record temps. I think the fit of the models have been getting such that we can say they are getting more accurate without having to wait a long time to see what happens. As it is no model could predict many natural fluctuations to come. They are really looking into the recent past to see how accurate a prediction is made be a model, over the time already recorded... that is when trying to determine if man made sources are the prime factor. h "Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Silent H responds to me:
quote: You reap what you sow. Stop playing dumb and perhaps we'll be able to get somewhere.
quote: Playing dumb is insulting.
quote: Trivia! Yes, "in theory" there's an alien sending icemelt rays to the Arctic causing the opening of the Northwest passage even though the temperature couldn't possibly be causing the icemelt. But let's not play dumb.
quote: You whine about not being able to engage in a "civil" discussion and then you come up with this? Conspiracy theories? Do you think we're stupid?
quote: Huh? That was the entire point! We know that there are natural variations. They don't result in what we see. Ergo, something else is going on.
quote: And there you go, playing dumb again. Let's see...what was it that I said? Oh, that's right:
The evidence makes it quite clear that the temperature changes we are seeing are not a natural variation. A single hot year? Yeah, that's not so bizarre. A decade of hottest years on record? A century of hottest years on record? And not a gradual buildup but a sudden spike? That's something else. Now, wouldn't slogging through decades of climate data indicate "detailed analysis of atmospheric factors"? Nah, couldn't possibly be. I was obviously talking about a single thunderstorm. Do you think we're stupid?
quote: And more playing dumb. Let's see...what was it that I said? Oh, that's right:
The evidence makes it quite clear that the temperature changes we are seeing are not a natural variation. A single hot year? Yeah, that's not so bizarre. A decade of hottest years on record? A century of hottest years on record? And not a gradual buildup but a sudden spike? That's something else. Hmm..."A century of hottest years on record." Is that "one event"? Why of course! It's "one event" of a century! Do you think we're stupid?
quote: But we're not talking about an unusual "event." We're talking about a complete reworking of everything. The glaciers didn't just "recede." They're GONE. Within a space that natural factors cannot account for.
quote: But that isn't what the prediction was. The prediction is not, "Glaciers will disappear if the temperature rises enough." The prediction was, "Glaciers will disappear because the temperature is rising beyond what would normally happen. Normal fluctuations would not result in the complete disappearance of glaciers." Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.4 |
If that's the case, shouldn't we investigate that whatever caused the rise in the past isn't responsible for causing at least some of it today? Or can we definitely tell it was due to solar activity ? We have. It isn't. Honestly, why do you assume climate scientists are idiots? The people telling you that humans are causing global warming are the same people who've spent the most time and effort determining how and why temperature has varied in the past. Ignore the trend evidence, just look at the CO2. We know, for a fact, that humans are releasing around 7 thousand million tonnes of C in the form of CO2 (~24 thousand million tonnes of CO2) into the atmosphere each year and that total levels of CO2 are rising by around 2 thousand million tonnes of CO2 each year. We know, for a fact, that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation because it transfers into vibrational energy in the bonds between the O atoms and the central C atom. We know that the earth's surface radiates 1.98 x 1017 W of energy as infrared energy each year and that the amount of that energy that escapes into space is a vital determining factor of surface temperature and we know that CO2 is the second most important greenhouse gas (meaning a gas that absorbs IR radiation and thus traps heat energy in the atmosphere) in the atmosphere. The most important is H2O but it's quantity is determined primarily by atmospheric temperature and thus follows the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Given these facts what possible way is there for human generated CO2 not causing global warming? What do you think is happening to the additional trapped energy if we're not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5845 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
I asked you to be civil in another thread. I've grown tired of your accusations of playing dumb and asking if I think you're stupid.
Apparently you did not understand what I was doing. I was using rainfall in a rain forest of an example of how an examination might proceed, just to show that the existence of the phenomena does not mean what kind of specific factors were related. I was not actually speculating on a cause for current phenomena. Also, I mentioned this pertained to multiple phenomena. You avoided this point I made and discussed multiple phenomena. That makes no difference to ascertain the specific causative factor. In conclusion, it appears you did not understand what I meant by "atmospheric factor". Hot weather is not a factor in rising global temps, it is the result of factors. I am talking about the physical factors which lead to rising temps. That means sources of heat as well as components of the atmosphere which trap heat. One more response from you like this and I will have to assume you have no interest in rational conversation. If you have a reasonable point, all of the insults are not only not necessary, they are contradictory to a purpose of making your arguments accessible to a reader. h "Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
It may be that we're wrong, but we don't have any reason to think that we are
Okay then, even with out any reason to think so, what if “Global Warming” is wrong?That’s the question of this thread. And by “wrong”, the question means “not catastrophic”. You seem to be saying that if we can find somebody somewhere with the magic letters P, H, and D trailing the name, then that means we should take his pronouncements just as seriously as all the evidence we have showing him to be wrong because...well...because "all science is only tentative."
You need to check your saying-seemer.That thought never crossed my mind when writing what you replied too. So yes, it's possible that it's all wrong. It's possible that we've overlooked something. But that's not good enough. You have to show what was overlooked and how it affects the conclusions drawn from all the other evidence.
Or, we could just discuss it as a hypothetical situation.
Your equating all the evidence that shows it is real and is primarily driven by humans with people who merely claim it isn't and can't provide any evidence to justify their claims, all because "it's possible" that all the evidence we have is wrong.
No, I’m not. Strike two.I didn’t really know why Crash bitched about you so much but its starting to make sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
How would "going green" hinder our technological advancement? I would think that seeking out and perfecting alternative sources of energy might actually open up new possibilities for advancement, but even if not, I fail to see how it would hinder us.
Sometimes you have to sacrifice efficacy for efficiency. Or projects get delayed in an attempt to “green” them up a bit.But this is what this thread should be about and I don’t know all the answers. I think it’d be a decent discussion. It’s too bad that the die-hard Global Warming advocates are incapable of even considering the possibility that it is wrong. As opposed to people making money off of the polluting, wasteful, war-inducing "non-green" scene? I don't see the problem here.
Some things won’t be problems. Others could.Which one will and which ones won’t is one thing that I thought should be discussed in this thread. Again, I don't see the problem with people making money from green policies which, as you concede, are good things.
Well, we’d have to get into specific policies to find the problems. Some things won’t be problems. Others could.Which one will and which ones won’t is one thing that I thought should be discussed in this thread. Again, I don't see the problem with people making money from green policies which, as you concede, are good things.
Well, we’d have to get into specific policies to find the problems.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
How would work on a technological advancement "hinder our technological advancements"?
It wouldn’t.
There is enough sunlight falling on the earth in a single minute to power the entire global energy demand for over a year. But solar power isn't very efficient at the moment. If I recall correctly, maximum efficiency is under 20%. If we could have some "technological advancements" to increase that efficiency and lower the cost, then we could reduce our use of oil, reduce our carbon emissions, and reduce the man-made effects of global warming.
That, for example, doesn’t sound like a hindrance to me.
quote:How? Be specific. What other companies are just scams? If Global Warming is wrong, how many more of them become scams? What else becomes a scam? Those are questions for this thread. Not “ZOMG! Where’s all the CO2 gonna go!”. That’s for a different thread. Besides, isn't it good business sense to develop a market?
Sure.
Especially one that reduces our dependence upon foreign oil?
It’s not only about oil.
Why are they the only ones allowed to get rich? Why can't the replacement technology for oil allow people to get rich?
Everyone is allowed to get rich.It is kinda annoying that, like alternative medicine, companies can parade as trying to help out when they are really just a scam to make money. And if there isn’t even a problem to begin with, then its just worse. And then we have people that believe everything on a label just because the product claims to be green. But imagine how better it would be if we developed technology such that they didn't have to buy oil. We solve the problem of their pollution and get an economic boost in the process as they buy the technology from us.
That would be cool.
Huh? How does working on technological advancements "limit" it?
If it is an advancement then it isn’t limiting. But not everything green is an advancement.
And you were just recently passing out admonishments to take this discussion seriously.
That wasn’t my interpretation. Are you trying to make me sound stupid?
An interpretation that advancing technology is actually "hindering" the advancement of technology isn't taking it seriously.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The scope of the thread seems to be the supportability of the Weather Channel guy's claims.
Actually, it assumes he’s right and is to discuss the ramifications of it.
That's the denier argument - there's every reason not to significantly change our lifestyles if there isn't any global warming, because it would "destroy the world economy."
Oh, I see what your saying.
It's just a double standard, is all I'm saying. The evidence-based warnings of climate scientists are dismissed as Chicken Little-ism, or hand-waved away because of misleading fake tentativity, but the cataclysmic warnings of the economists, based on no evidence at all, are taken without question as the inevitable outcome of any attempt to reduce emissions.
It does seem like a double standard. I guess people form it from their perceived lack of immediate effect combined with a feeling of getting screwed by green scene. But that is just a guess.
The "hoax", for the purpose of this thread, is that Global Warming is going to be catastrophic.
And how does that work? Our crops just magically don't need as much water? Arable land will suddenly appear just as fast as it disappears in other areas? I just don't yet understand the argument. It's like saying "the Statue of Liberty is a hoax." Wait, what? I mean I can go and see it. I can walk up inside it. I can touch it. Where's the hoax?
You can’t fathom the possibility that humans are not affecting the climate and that there is nothing wrong with it?
So what if is it just going to flutter out? I'm trying to understand the argument
That’s what the discussion is supposed to be.Do we really all need to get into a hissy-fit about the environment? I think people are lazy and really don’t want to do anything much and that it is going to take a lot of work to fix the problems if they are real. Why make everyone get off their ass if there really isn’t a problem? Look, if neither Weather Guy, nor NJ, nor you are going to actually flesh out an argument, can you blame me for trying to do it for you?
You don’t have to be so disingenuous.
I simply want to understand the argument. What, exactly, is being asserted is a hoax?
That humans are affecting the environment in a way that is going to be catastrophic to them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The "suppose there is no crisis" argument is among the stupidest presented.
It really is that simple, huh? Most reasonable people buy insurance. We buy life insurance, health insurance, liability insurance, collision and comprehensive insurance, homeowners insurance and policies to address other risks.
Yeah, and it could just be a waste of money. You could have been had.I have not had a flood, yet I have flood insurance. My house has not had a fire yet I insure against the risk. I have not had an accident in forty years or so, yet still insure my automobile. A reasonable person prepares ahead of time to try to mitigate the harmful effects of the risks faced. Maybe not, but we can still discuss the consequences of it you had.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 419 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
So are you saying we should not take advantage of insurance?
Are you saying we should not prepare for disasters? Are you saying that like we did with Katrina, we should wait until after something happens to begin thinking about mitigating consequences? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3317 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Silent H writes:
While it is true we have no definite way of knowing how fast temp fluc can occur naturally, we do have some indication that it should happen over the course of centuries, not decades. Take the little ice age, for example. It was a phenomenon that took course over centuries.
To clarify, we actually don't know how fast temperature fluctuations can occur naturally. As it is no model could predict many natural fluctuations to come.
This is a fact of life because the weather is a chaotic system. There really is no way anyone could account for enough initial conditions to make accurate predictions. All we are left with are general predictions, like the melting of the old glaciers and permafrost, and so far all these predictions are coming true. Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.4 |
A complete aside, but actually weather is probably not a chaotic system just very complicated.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024