Reme,
Just got done reading your response below. And...was impressed.
You're right about people not reading long posts. I agree (we might be the only two reading our back and forth here...oh, and a friend of mine who doesn't agree with me either and thinks I'm being an ass...so you're not the only one who feels that way). One of the great problems of the internet, and this debate in general, is the unwillingness of the average joe to put the time into going deep into the debate.
Perhaps you're right about my not having it both ways with the IPCC. That does seem, to use your phrase, cherry picking. While I don't think they get everything wrong, I do think they make a lot of mistakes. Still, if I'm going to tear on them I'll try in the future not to use them as a measuring stick.
Ah, but regarding their predictive adjustments...can you get me some numbers on how their predictions have changed from report to report? If my memory serves me correctly, I seem to recall they have lowered their predictions over time, not increased them, as the real world has not been heating up as quickly as they imagined. I'll look for those numbers myself while I'm at it.
Finally, I honestly admire the way you stick to your guns on this debate. While I haven't mentioned it thus far, it is something that does not escape me. Reading your posts, it isn't difficult to detect your passion, your anger, your frustration, as well as a host of other emotions. What stands out more than these (at least in my mind) is your dogged determination not to back down.
I respect that. Whatever else we may disagree on here, I genuinely respect and admire that quality in you.
Stick to it.
Ty
Monday, February 8, 2010
Friday, February 5, 2010
Why I'm A Condescending Jerk
Reme,
Thank you for clarifying your thoughts on Mann's data. While I agree Mann has “fought back” and other scientists have supported him, I think the most damning statement about the validity of his work is the IPCC's rejection of his data. If the scientific community was truly behind his work, I would imagine the IPCC would still be displaying it.
I am fully aware that you believe the data supports man-made global warming. And, yes, I agree with you that man has damaged the planet and that much of that damage is detrimental and irreversible. Where we disagree regards the concept that man has caused massive global warming that will be the end of life as we know it.
You are arguing we have. I am arguing we have contributed slightly to global warming and that the majority of that change is natural, out of our control, and will not kill us.
However, because you brought the debate to the table and said you wanted to lay out your case, I have merely commented on your information, attacked your reasoning, and shown data to contradict yours only when necessary. I have done this because I felt it was your case to prove, not mine. If we are playing prosecutor and defense, the burden rests on you to prove your case, not on me to prove mine.
For this reason, I have provided data only when I thought it truly necessary. You seem to think I am “cherry-picking” data, but I think this is a stretch. There is a wealth of data I could present, but I am working my posts as responses to yours. You are presenting your case for global warming, while I am showing you where your case needs work.
Also, I don't think it's fair to say I'm “cherry-picking” particular portions of data, either. I believe I emphasized clearly that Solanki's own conclusion about his data differs from mine. If I'd wanted, I could have left that out altogether. It would have been disingenuous of me to withhold such information, because it would have made it seem that Solanki was against global warming, but I could have left it out of my post. Doing so would have made my case stronger.
But I didn't. I told the truth.
Yes, it no doubt seems I am being condescending. And, no doubt, it rubs you the wrong way. Could I do a better job of being nice? I could.
There are two reasons for my tone. First, you can do better. When I tell you your logic is sloppy it's because you are capable of sharper, clearer and more focused thinking. If I thought sloppiness was all you were capable of, I wouldn't bother. You're smart. Damn smart. Watching you wade through logical fallacies as if they were holy truths tries my patience because I recognize you have greater potential.
Probably it seems as if I am constantly attacking you, as an individual. I have tried to keep the focus of my attacks on your argument, on your logic. I have done so because this is an area where you can improve. I have largely acknowledged the facts you present, because facts are not debatable (only their interpretation).
My approach serves two purposes: First, it should help you to strengthen your own argument. I am pointing out flaws, and I am pointing them out roughly, but to point them out delicately makes it likely you will ignore them altogether. If you can put aside your anger at being treated poorly, you will find the ways in which to make your argument stronger. Second, it also gives you the option of changing my mind. My mind is not closed, although to some it may seem to be. I argue forcefully, but that does not mean I am not open to new ways of seeing the world. I focus on your arguments because they are weak. Go back and examine your facts and present a strong logical argument...and you may just alter my perception.
Finally, I give you rough treatment because, quite frankly, global warming advocates piss me off. Understand for a moment how I view this: Your entire argument is a fundamental attack on the principles of science and democracy. That's what I see. GWAs use pseudo-science and false logic to distract and frighten millions of people, and in doing so they undermine the two most vital systems in our nation: our science and our democratic government. That's my viewpoint.
That burns me in a place very close to my core. Therefore, you get the rough treatment.
Understand something else. When you start to make a solid argument and start taking into account all the data, you will discover my anger goes away. I am not angry at you, per se. I am not angry at your conclusion. It is a mistake to think so. I am angry with your method, which in my view is unsound and manipulative.
To try and illustrate what I mean, to be clear, let me give you some examples.
You bring up the issue of feedback loops. This is good. I like talking about feedback loops. This is a scientific place to start, a scientific debate. Excellent.
Feedback loops can play a particular role in a wide range of issues, but here of course we are focusing on changes in the climate which have effects which reinforce their initial causes, creating a “loop,” from which, at least in theory, there is no escape.
No doubt you've seen arguments for cooling loops in regards to ice ages. Temperature drops. We get more ice. More ice means more sunlight bounced off the planet. Which means cooler temperatures. Which means more ice.
On and on as you say.
In the example you give, we have a rise in temperature. Which causes ice to melt. Which releases methane. Which increases a rise in temperature. Which causes ice to melt.
A loop.
I'm still with you, and so far I'm still happy.
But you leave it there. I would assume that you would argue that such feedback loops will lead to extreme global warming and the end of life (or, at least, mass destruction). That is the general global warming argument.
And that is all you say. Which is where I start to get angry.
See, you've acknowledged feedback loops, but you've only acknowledged them as far as they support your argument. You didn't point out that there is a fundamental flaw in the overall feedback loop theory, which is that feedback loops are not iron traps. They change.
(this should be an obvious point, given that the Earth has gone through regular, periodic alterations between warm and cool)
Furthermore, in order to present information in a way that only supports your argument, you simplify it and ignore the greater complexity, and you do so specifically because if you acknowledged that complexity it would undermine your argument.
Example:
A study published in March 2001 in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society presented data showing a correlation between higher sea surface temperature of cloudy regions and fewer clouds. The data showed that a one degree Celsius increase seemed to cause twenty-two percent fewer upper-level clouds.
In other words, when the temperature increases the clouds dissipate, allowing more infrared cooling, and thus resisting changes in tropical surface temperature.
Since clouds account for the greatest influence on global temperature, this is key. In regards to the IPCC report that was out at the time this data was published, the IPCC had indicated a predicted change in temperature of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius in roughly the next century. The data published in the Bulletin took into account their research (the IPCC cloud variation models were, by their own admission, drastically uncertain) and found a readjusted projection of .64 to 1.6 degrees Celsius.
The importance here is two-fold. First, to note that feedback loops are not immutable. The earth's climate adjusts naturally to alterations in temperature. Which means that claiming that a rise in CO2 will cause warming which will cause melting which will cause warming...on and on...is a model which does not take into account the way the world works.
Second, it points out the reason we need to acknowledge this complexity. Because it will dramatically alter our projections.
And, now, you see, I'm really quite pissed off. Because the GWA argument is built very carefully, very selectively, so as to present only one narrow little view, and that view only works if it ignores whole realms of data, common sense and logic.
This is what I can't stand.
I commend your correction of my analysis regarding why we would not see a spike in temperature until the 1970/80's. Indeed, the natural world has adjusted to an increase in CO2, much of which is absorbed by the oceans.
However, I'm also confused by your clarification. You argued before that the climate is extremely delicate, and that even slight amounts of alteration can lead to drastic consequences. Except here, in your clarification of my point, you seem to be arguing that the natural world has been able to handle our CO2 dumping for decades and decades, which would suggest it is not as delicate as you first stated.
I don't really think you can have it both ways.
Below this post you will find my specific argument in the CO2 debate, in a separate post.
The CO2 Debate
Reme,
First, thank you for your patience. It's been a busy week for me, multiple papers, multiple mid-terms, a group project and prepping for a James Joyce presentation (you think arguing global warming is difficult...try explaining Joyce).
I said earlier I wanted to address the CO2 argument, which I will do in this post. I realize your own post regarding CO2 also covered other topics, including feedback loops, which I would like to comment on as well, but will do so at a later date.
This post here is actually the same post I threw up a year ago when we were having this same debate then. I have gone back only to cut it down where it isn't relevant (direct commentary to questions not related to CO2).
While the point of this post should be clear, what I want to emphasize from the start is the complexity of what we're talking about and the danger of over-simplifying it.
In your post you explained the basic argument I hear from all Global Warming Advocates (GWAs as they will be referred to in this post), and I find that argument naively simplified. It works well in convincing an uneducated public to say that the earth is a greenhouse and CO2 heats it up, but by ignoring the vast complexity of a system like global climate GWAs are, at best, clouding the issue, and, at worst, being willfully, manipulatively dishonest.
My hope here is to engender at least a small sense of how the simple CO2 explanation given by GWAs is only a minute glimpse of a much larger picture, and to furthermore emphasize how GWAs have blown that glimpse far, far out of proportion.
Here we go.
If I’ve got it right, the general, popular global warming argument goes like this: Mankind has drastically increased the amount of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere, thus causing an ever-increasing Greenhouse Effect because the CO2 traps heat within the atmosphere. The result is Earth’s temperature rises and rises, eventually spiraling out of control.
This entire argument rests on the assumption that Earth’s atmosphere acts exactly like a greenhouse, so let us begin there.
A greenhouse raises temperature within it by controlling convection (the circulation of the air). Sunlight comes in through the glass, warms the ground inside, the ground warms the air, the air rises but cannot escape, and thus the temperature simply continues to rise. When you need to cool a greenhouse, you open a window on the roof and a door below, creating a convection current, and the air circulates and cools.
The Earth’s system, however, does not operate in this manner (the big giveaway should be the lack of a giant window in the sky). The Earth does employ a “greenhouse effect,” but it does so through modulating radiation, which is not the way an actual greenhouse works.
The importance of this distinction is that “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere do not behave like the glass ceiling of a greenhouse, preventing all the heat from leaving. This is a common misunderstanding.
To understand the Earth’s own “greenhouse effect,” we must first understand the larger system of energy exchange. The drastic oversimplification of this system is this:
The Sun sends out strong, shortwave radiation. This radiation moves through our atmosphere and is absorbed, and then a portion of it is emitted back as longwave radiation (this is because the Earth isn’t as hot and energetic as the sun). This longwave radiation moves back through the atmosphere and escapes into space.
The more complex reality includes other factors:
The atmosphere is a series of layers and includes clouds and other gases. Not all of the radiation from the sun reaches the surface; indeed much of it bounces off the atmosphere and never enters Earth at all. Radiation leaving the surface must also pass back through many stages, thus encountering another complicated journey.
What should be immediately clear is that the general belief that our atmosphere acts as a barrier, “trapping” heat inside the system is a myth. Radiation enters and leaves continuously, and while radiation may be slowed down on its journey back and forth, it is never fully “trapped” within the system. No matter how many layers it has to pass through, it will eventually exit the system.
Again, the difference we need to fully grasp is the difference between a convection system, which fully traps air, and the Earth’s radiation system, which allows flow of radiation in and out.
Now, with that understanding, let us address the “greenhouse effect” that actually occurs on Earth, and in the process abandon our earlier misunderstanding of a glass ceiling.
First, it is critical to grasp that while the Earth’s “greenhouse effect” has been given a bad rap, it is vital for life on our planet. Minus out the “greenhouse effect” and we don’t exist.
This critical system works like this:
A portion of the radiation emitted back from the Earth is absorbed by water vapor and greenhouse gases before then being emitted once again, which allows the surface and atmospheric temperature to rise. This interplay within the system is what keeps our planet at a hospitable temperature.
If you could remove this mechanism, the temperature would drop by 35 degrees, well below the freezing point of water.
Obviously then, while we can discuss the fluctuations of this “greenhouse effect,” it is a serious mistake to believe that our goal should be to remove it altogether.
The core issue GWAs raise at this juncture is that C02 in the atmosphere acts as a major force within the system, causing massive fluctuations in temperature by absorbing major quantities of radiation and bouncing it back to the surface.
To figure out if this is true, we must first know what the atmosphere is made of and how much C02 is currently there.
The composition of Earth’s atmosphere is comprised of the following gases: Nitrogen, Oxygen, Water (in the form of vapor), Argon, Carbon Dioxide, Neon, Helium, Methane, Krypton, Hydrogen, Nitrous Oxide, Xenon, Ozone, Nitrogen Dioxide, Iodine, Carbon Monoxide, and Ammonia. I have ordered them from largest quantity to smallest quantity.
Nitrogen makes up 78.08% of the atmosphere. Oxygen 20.95%.
That means over 99% of the atmosphere is Nitrogen and Oxygen.
C02, which GWAs spend so much focus on, makes up .0383% of Earth’s atmosphere.
That is less than half of one percent.
Surely then, C02 must be an incredibly powerful “greenhouse gas,” so incredibly powerful that the amount of radiation it can absorb can simply overpower the effects of over 99% of Earth’s atmosphere.
This is a pleasant fantasy GWAs would like to believe. In reality, C02 is one of the weakest absorbents of heat in the atmosphere (Methane is capable of absorbing 21 times the amount of heat of C02, Nitrous Oxide 310 times). Also, since neither Nitrogen nor Oxygen is a “greenhouse gas”, even if we added all the “greenhouse gases” together we’re still talking about less than 1% of the atmosphere.
In fact, only one item on the list can truly be called a major player:
Water vapor.
Water vapor, especially in the form of clouds, accounts for between 90% and 95% of Earth’s “greenhouse effect,” a fluctuation that is never entirely stable at one number because the water in the atmosphere is constantly changing (due to elevation, temperature, wind, etc.). Clouds are the single most important and determinant “greenhouse gas,” absorbing more and emitting more radiation than anything else in the system.
To go further, one must recognize that all gasses can only absorb radiation within a narrow bandwidth of the light spectrum (C02 absorbs longwave, infrared and far-infrared radiation only in three narrow bandwidths, at 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers...which means only 8% of the Earth’s emitted radiation can be absorbed by C02 at all), and that each of the “greenhouse gasses” is, for lack of a better metaphor, in competition with the rest for the chance to absorb radiation. And all of these gasses are effected by an atmosphere that is not static…it is constantly in motion, as is the air, the ocean currents, the Earth itself, everything.
So…to come back to the central argument.
Of all of the radiation from the Sun the Earth can possible take in, roughly half reaches the surface. Of that half, only some 15% is absorbed into the atmosphere when emitted from the Earth.
Of the 100% composition of Earth’s atmosphere that will absorb that 15% energy, C02 makes up a slight .0383%.
And that .0383% of C02 is only physically capable of absorbing 8% of the emitted radiation.
These are the numbers. They are plain and simple numbers, and you may interpret them how you choose.
GWAs offer us the interpretation that the .0383% of C02 in the atmosphere is responsible for all of the temperature fluctuation of the last century, and that this less than half of one percent of the atmosphere will cause the end of mankind as we know it.
GWAs offer that the .0383% of C02 in the atmosphere plays a larger and more powerful role than 99% of the atmosphere, and that it outweighs the effects of water vapor and clouds, which are admitted by climatologists to play the largest role in Earth’s “greenhouse effect.”
GWAs offer that this minuscule amount of carbon is more important than all other factors, from natural interglacial warming to urban sprawl to the effect of the Sun itself.
Now, I imagine that you are probably saying to yourself that even if this amount is so small, human beings have already added to it, and will keep adding to it, and so there will be more and more C02 in the atmosphere, wreaking more and more havoc, so that we need to ACT NOW OR ELSE.
Which would be logical if humans accounted for the majority of carbon emissions into the atmosphere (we don’t…human activity accounts for roughly 3.4% of annual carbon dioxide emissions…the other 96.6% is entirely natural) and if the accumulation of C02 didn’t have a logarithmic effect (except it does…which means that the more C02 you add, the less effect the additional gas has…imagine putting up window blinds, and then another set of blinds behind those, and then another set, on and on…each successive set has less effect than the one before it). Actually, the truth is that advocating for a massive C02 reduction would mean advocating for the destruction of the natural world producers of C02…kind of ironic, I think.
Still, you could argue that cutting out the major sources of human production of C02 emissions would lessen the amount of C02 in the atmosphere, thereby DOING OUR PART to help keep the planet at its current temperature. This would at least be making an effort.
Which would be logical if the major sources of human production of C02 (factories and cars) didn’t also produce aerosols, which act as a cooling mechanism in the atmosphere, thereby canceling out the effect of C02 in the first place (cooling mechanisms are actually an entire focus GWAs try to ignore, both natural and man-made)
The truth, my friend, is that the GWAs concentration on C02 emissions is based upon bad science, misinterpretation and fundamental misunderstandings of the way our world works.
And, to put it rather bluntly, folks still making this argument simply don’t know what they’re talking about.
First, thank you for your patience. It's been a busy week for me, multiple papers, multiple mid-terms, a group project and prepping for a James Joyce presentation (you think arguing global warming is difficult...try explaining Joyce).
I said earlier I wanted to address the CO2 argument, which I will do in this post. I realize your own post regarding CO2 also covered other topics, including feedback loops, which I would like to comment on as well, but will do so at a later date.
This post here is actually the same post I threw up a year ago when we were having this same debate then. I have gone back only to cut it down where it isn't relevant (direct commentary to questions not related to CO2).
While the point of this post should be clear, what I want to emphasize from the start is the complexity of what we're talking about and the danger of over-simplifying it.
In your post you explained the basic argument I hear from all Global Warming Advocates (GWAs as they will be referred to in this post), and I find that argument naively simplified. It works well in convincing an uneducated public to say that the earth is a greenhouse and CO2 heats it up, but by ignoring the vast complexity of a system like global climate GWAs are, at best, clouding the issue, and, at worst, being willfully, manipulatively dishonest.
My hope here is to engender at least a small sense of how the simple CO2 explanation given by GWAs is only a minute glimpse of a much larger picture, and to furthermore emphasize how GWAs have blown that glimpse far, far out of proportion.
Here we go.
If I’ve got it right, the general, popular global warming argument goes like this: Mankind has drastically increased the amount of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere, thus causing an ever-increasing Greenhouse Effect because the CO2 traps heat within the atmosphere. The result is Earth’s temperature rises and rises, eventually spiraling out of control.
This entire argument rests on the assumption that Earth’s atmosphere acts exactly like a greenhouse, so let us begin there.
A greenhouse raises temperature within it by controlling convection (the circulation of the air). Sunlight comes in through the glass, warms the ground inside, the ground warms the air, the air rises but cannot escape, and thus the temperature simply continues to rise. When you need to cool a greenhouse, you open a window on the roof and a door below, creating a convection current, and the air circulates and cools.
The Earth’s system, however, does not operate in this manner (the big giveaway should be the lack of a giant window in the sky). The Earth does employ a “greenhouse effect,” but it does so through modulating radiation, which is not the way an actual greenhouse works.
The importance of this distinction is that “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere do not behave like the glass ceiling of a greenhouse, preventing all the heat from leaving. This is a common misunderstanding.
To understand the Earth’s own “greenhouse effect,” we must first understand the larger system of energy exchange. The drastic oversimplification of this system is this:
The Sun sends out strong, shortwave radiation. This radiation moves through our atmosphere and is absorbed, and then a portion of it is emitted back as longwave radiation (this is because the Earth isn’t as hot and energetic as the sun). This longwave radiation moves back through the atmosphere and escapes into space.
The more complex reality includes other factors:
The atmosphere is a series of layers and includes clouds and other gases. Not all of the radiation from the sun reaches the surface; indeed much of it bounces off the atmosphere and never enters Earth at all. Radiation leaving the surface must also pass back through many stages, thus encountering another complicated journey.
What should be immediately clear is that the general belief that our atmosphere acts as a barrier, “trapping” heat inside the system is a myth. Radiation enters and leaves continuously, and while radiation may be slowed down on its journey back and forth, it is never fully “trapped” within the system. No matter how many layers it has to pass through, it will eventually exit the system.
Again, the difference we need to fully grasp is the difference between a convection system, which fully traps air, and the Earth’s radiation system, which allows flow of radiation in and out.
Now, with that understanding, let us address the “greenhouse effect” that actually occurs on Earth, and in the process abandon our earlier misunderstanding of a glass ceiling.
First, it is critical to grasp that while the Earth’s “greenhouse effect” has been given a bad rap, it is vital for life on our planet. Minus out the “greenhouse effect” and we don’t exist.
This critical system works like this:
A portion of the radiation emitted back from the Earth is absorbed by water vapor and greenhouse gases before then being emitted once again, which allows the surface and atmospheric temperature to rise. This interplay within the system is what keeps our planet at a hospitable temperature.
If you could remove this mechanism, the temperature would drop by 35 degrees, well below the freezing point of water.
Obviously then, while we can discuss the fluctuations of this “greenhouse effect,” it is a serious mistake to believe that our goal should be to remove it altogether.
The core issue GWAs raise at this juncture is that C02 in the atmosphere acts as a major force within the system, causing massive fluctuations in temperature by absorbing major quantities of radiation and bouncing it back to the surface.
To figure out if this is true, we must first know what the atmosphere is made of and how much C02 is currently there.
The composition of Earth’s atmosphere is comprised of the following gases: Nitrogen, Oxygen, Water (in the form of vapor), Argon, Carbon Dioxide, Neon, Helium, Methane, Krypton, Hydrogen, Nitrous Oxide, Xenon, Ozone, Nitrogen Dioxide, Iodine, Carbon Monoxide, and Ammonia. I have ordered them from largest quantity to smallest quantity.
Nitrogen makes up 78.08% of the atmosphere. Oxygen 20.95%.
That means over 99% of the atmosphere is Nitrogen and Oxygen.
C02, which GWAs spend so much focus on, makes up .0383% of Earth’s atmosphere.
That is less than half of one percent.
Surely then, C02 must be an incredibly powerful “greenhouse gas,” so incredibly powerful that the amount of radiation it can absorb can simply overpower the effects of over 99% of Earth’s atmosphere.
This is a pleasant fantasy GWAs would like to believe. In reality, C02 is one of the weakest absorbents of heat in the atmosphere (Methane is capable of absorbing 21 times the amount of heat of C02, Nitrous Oxide 310 times). Also, since neither Nitrogen nor Oxygen is a “greenhouse gas”, even if we added all the “greenhouse gases” together we’re still talking about less than 1% of the atmosphere.
In fact, only one item on the list can truly be called a major player:
Water vapor.
Water vapor, especially in the form of clouds, accounts for between 90% and 95% of Earth’s “greenhouse effect,” a fluctuation that is never entirely stable at one number because the water in the atmosphere is constantly changing (due to elevation, temperature, wind, etc.). Clouds are the single most important and determinant “greenhouse gas,” absorbing more and emitting more radiation than anything else in the system.
To go further, one must recognize that all gasses can only absorb radiation within a narrow bandwidth of the light spectrum (C02 absorbs longwave, infrared and far-infrared radiation only in three narrow bandwidths, at 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers...which means only 8% of the Earth’s emitted radiation can be absorbed by C02 at all), and that each of the “greenhouse gasses” is, for lack of a better metaphor, in competition with the rest for the chance to absorb radiation. And all of these gasses are effected by an atmosphere that is not static…it is constantly in motion, as is the air, the ocean currents, the Earth itself, everything.
So…to come back to the central argument.
Of all of the radiation from the Sun the Earth can possible take in, roughly half reaches the surface. Of that half, only some 15% is absorbed into the atmosphere when emitted from the Earth.
Of the 100% composition of Earth’s atmosphere that will absorb that 15% energy, C02 makes up a slight .0383%.
And that .0383% of C02 is only physically capable of absorbing 8% of the emitted radiation.
These are the numbers. They are plain and simple numbers, and you may interpret them how you choose.
GWAs offer us the interpretation that the .0383% of C02 in the atmosphere is responsible for all of the temperature fluctuation of the last century, and that this less than half of one percent of the atmosphere will cause the end of mankind as we know it.
GWAs offer that the .0383% of C02 in the atmosphere plays a larger and more powerful role than 99% of the atmosphere, and that it outweighs the effects of water vapor and clouds, which are admitted by climatologists to play the largest role in Earth’s “greenhouse effect.”
GWAs offer that this minuscule amount of carbon is more important than all other factors, from natural interglacial warming to urban sprawl to the effect of the Sun itself.
Now, I imagine that you are probably saying to yourself that even if this amount is so small, human beings have already added to it, and will keep adding to it, and so there will be more and more C02 in the atmosphere, wreaking more and more havoc, so that we need to ACT NOW OR ELSE.
Which would be logical if humans accounted for the majority of carbon emissions into the atmosphere (we don’t…human activity accounts for roughly 3.4% of annual carbon dioxide emissions…the other 96.6% is entirely natural) and if the accumulation of C02 didn’t have a logarithmic effect (except it does…which means that the more C02 you add, the less effect the additional gas has…imagine putting up window blinds, and then another set of blinds behind those, and then another set, on and on…each successive set has less effect than the one before it). Actually, the truth is that advocating for a massive C02 reduction would mean advocating for the destruction of the natural world producers of C02…kind of ironic, I think.
Still, you could argue that cutting out the major sources of human production of C02 emissions would lessen the amount of C02 in the atmosphere, thereby DOING OUR PART to help keep the planet at its current temperature. This would at least be making an effort.
Which would be logical if the major sources of human production of C02 (factories and cars) didn’t also produce aerosols, which act as a cooling mechanism in the atmosphere, thereby canceling out the effect of C02 in the first place (cooling mechanisms are actually an entire focus GWAs try to ignore, both natural and man-made)
The truth, my friend, is that the GWAs concentration on C02 emissions is based upon bad science, misinterpretation and fundamental misunderstandings of the way our world works.
And, to put it rather bluntly, folks still making this argument simply don’t know what they’re talking about.
Monday, February 1, 2010
As The Man Once Said...
Reme,
As the man once said: What we have here is a failure to communicate.
We seem to be misunderstanding each other. Which is unfortunate, and is also frustrating. I have tried very hard to be clear. I will try again.
This post will seek to clarify misunderstandings from the first portion of your post. I do not have the time today to address the second section of your post where you present your CO2 argument. I will come back that later in the week when I have more time.
I have not debated good, hard data proposed by organizations such as NASA or even the IPCC. Data, in the way of fact, is not debatable.
I have debated, rather, the conclusions of various scientists and agencies.
Let me draw that line once more: There is a difference between Data and Conclusion. One is Fact. The other is Analysis. They are not synonymous. They are not one and the same.
I point this out once again, because it seems to be a sticking point with you. You continue to mix up the two, assuming that because one has Data they also have an accurate Conclusion.
I have made much out of the issue of consensus, because I believe it is an important part of this debate. I will state here again: Consensus is not a basis for argument. This is not my opinion. It is one of the foundations of logical argument.
I mentioned before that Logic is a school of thought worth further investigation. You may want to start with Logical Fallacies (false logic) regarding Appeal to Authority, for this is one of your continued weaknesses.
Also, you are inaccurate when you say no one has published work which contradicts global warming. Solanki's work, which you just read, offers evidence contrary to global warming theory. Much of what is needed in this debate is fresh eyes to examine the data without preconceptions. Separate Solanki's conclusion from his data and examine his data alone. What does it show?
A rise in temperature corresponding with a rise in solar irradiation until 1980, after which there is a significant spike in temperature not related to solar irradiation.
That is the Data. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Everything after is Analysis.
The Data, here, in Solanki's work, contradicts various precepts of the global warming argument, mainly that the temperature increase spikes as a result of the industrial revolution. Solanki's data shows a spike, but much later, in 1980.
This raises the question of why there is no significant spike in temperature from the very beginning of the industrial revolution. If the balance of the atmosphere is as delicate as you suggest, we should see a spike right from the start. It also begs the question of why there is a spike from 1980 forward.
In regards to Mann's work: Mann serves as an example of how there are fallible scientists on both sides of the argument. That was my central point. You extrapolated from there that I meant we should dismiss the entire IPCC report, which I did not allude to.
My suggestion, rather, was that since the IPCC had fully endorsed the work of a scientist whose work was later discredited, we can only conclude that it is possible there is other work in their report which might also be suspect. This is not an argument to “throw the baby out with the bath water,” but rather an argument to proceed cautiously and remain skeptical of all arguments, no matter who is presenting them.
You must remain skeptical of my arguments. But you need also be skeptical of the IPCC's.
More importantly, though, is your flippant dismissal of Mann's work (Wow, take away one graph...). I would argue that every piece of evidence is important, and that dismissing a man's work as if it did not matter at all or did not change the outcome is not only hasty but misguided.
Do you really believe Mann's graph was so unimportant? That it doesn't really matter if it was there or not?
I find this interesting, because it would lead one to believe that the IPCC's decision to include it was made as flippantly as was your dismissal. Either the IPCC considered Mann's work carefully and, believing it important and relevant, chose to include it, or they chose his work willy-nilly and with little regard for its merit.
I believe they did the former, which illustrates that even good scientists and well-meaning people can make grave mistakes. But if we believe the latter then we can not consider anything in the IPCC report relevant at all.
I'm guessing you would place yourself with the former group. However, if that is so, your glib jesting to explain away such a discrepancy in the IPCC report shows that you are only considering information which is in line with your case. If it suits your purpose then it must be accurate. If it taints your argument, then it is “just one graph.”
Concerning your paragraph about data and tests, the one where you gave a more detailed explanation of what you think my argument is...you misunderstood me. I have not claimed there is no data, no hypotheses, no tests, no evidence.
Data: I have argued that there is a mass of data. I have argued there is also a large measure of data unaccounted for.
Hypotheses: I have argued that there are hypotheses for global warming, many of which fall into the category of false logic (such as many of the arguments you have already presented).
Tests: I have not said anything thus far about tests, but eventually I will. Some of the tests in this debate are relevant and accurate, as regards to data. Other tests often used are absolutely worthless and have no meaning whatsoever.
Evidence: See Data.
Finally, I have argued that the conclusions drawn from the available data are inaccurate, and that the men and women drawing those conclusions misuse the data available to them by making false-logical arguments and ignoring contrary data.
This is pseudo-science.
I will state again: Data and Conclusion are not the same thing.
One can accept Data and question Conclusion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)