You're not what? I think something got lost in translation there. (I'm not deliberately taking you out of context. I really have no idea what you're saying you're not.
You are basing an entire argument on simple thermodynamic principles that are demonstrable in isolation.
You complain about the complex models, so I mention it's based on simple principles. Then you complain that the principles are too simple. Let me know if I've gotten something wrong here.
Originally, in the 60's, it was based off simple thermodynamical principles. That's enough to get the general idea. To determine how bad it will get, however, you have to understand both positive and negative feedback cycles. That's where the complex models come into play. Are they complete? No. However, they've been pretty good at setting a lower bound for how bad things are going to be. Recently, it's been vogue in certain circles to call these models into question by pointing out how they've been too conservative. However, the models have been designed to underpredict. They couldn't account for the effects of underwater streams under the ice, so they treated them as if they would have no effect knowing that the real result would be only worse. This was mentioned explicitly in the IPCC reports.
As I've said elsewhere, "the best is the enemy of the good" (Voltaire). Don't hold your breath waiting for perfect models. However, they're already good.
Yes, and I don't pretend otherwise - unlike many self-labeled "skeptics".
Does that mean I should call you by some name like that?
Sure. "Informed citizen" or "scientist" (in my case) are both apt. Believe it or not, scientists do come to conclusions after viewing a sufficient amount of evidence. Of course, I'll admit that in my case, all evidence that I'm relying on is second-hand, so don't count me as a primary source for anything (not that you would).
My experience indicates that most people actually are open to persuasion, but that the persuader often strongly disagrees with the person he is trying to persuade on what that person's threshold for accepting the theory should be.
It depends on what you mean by "open to persuasion". After a certain age, my experience indicates quite the opposite. However, in this case, it does seem that many actual skeptics (people who genuinely hadn't made up their mind), are being convinced. Many others are just following the herd. Unfortunate reason, but it's human nature. I predict that within my lifetime, there won't be many more people who believe that the current global warming cycle is "natural" than who believe the Earth goes around the Sun. That won't come until it becomes much more expensive to fix, unfortunately, but I think it will come.
Assuming you have not yet accepted AGW, what's your threshold? What sort of evidence would it take to convince you?
When you have a few years worth of data on a planet whose orbital period is between one and two years, it's silly to talk about it's climate showing any kind of trend. We've got 7 planets in this solar system besides Earth. At random, you would expect some to be showing signs of warming and others to be showing signs of cooling. To use Mars as evidence that global warming on Earth isn't anthropogenic is silly and that's what they're debunking.
Where in the world are you pulling that number from? Inhofe? Perhaps you mean 0.4 degC since 1940 or approximately 0.7 degF? Certainly you don't really mean.04 degrees.
There are two levels of doubts. (1) That we are most likely contributing significantly to global warming. Find one climatologist who disagrees with this, and find it in their own words. (I.e., don't trust people like Inhofe.) (2) That we are beyond a reasonable doubt contributing to the majority of global warming. You'll definitely find "more than just a few" climatologists who disagree with this. So, if you were in charge what would be your criteria? 90% of all climatologists have to believe that we are the primary cause beyond a reasonable doubt? 95%? 99%? 100%?!?
You'll never have complete agreement about anything. To paraphrase Voltaire: "The best is the enemy of the good". Don't hold your breath waiting for perfection.
There were two parts: (1) Particulate pollution is contributing to global cooling. This is still held to be true. Only a handful of scientists thought this contribution was significant, and one (maybe more) published a book about it. (2) We are past due for an ice age. AFAIK, this is still held to be true by a majority of scientists.
Whose doubt? Yours or people in a position to make that claim? Because most climatologists would say that's already been show beyond a reasonable doubt, I'm pretty sure.
This is one piece of evidence. There is probably more to the story.
Absolutely. And it's in the climate journals if you care to read about it. There is plenty of evidence to support AGW. It's not just about correlation. Heck, it's not even primarily about correlation.
Skeptics are those who are open to either side of the debate. They do exist. However, most prominent self-labeled "skeptics" are not. If you only believe that AGW can't be real, then you are not a "skeptic" because you've already made up your mind. You are a denier. Or, if you feel that word is loaded, choose another term that means "I refuse to believe" rather than simply "I'm not sure". I suppose, "debunker" is fine, if one assumes (as presumably they do) that they're right. Of course, once you've decided that, you probably can't call yourself a "skeptic", either.
B2) CO2 absorbs infrared radiation.
That moves you from merely correlation to causation.
If someone could CONCLUSIVLY prove that humans are the sole cause of global warming, and that global warming is not natural, and that it is bad, I would listen. Unfortunately they have yet to do so.
It's nice to see the goal posts moved yet again. Do they actually have to prove they are the sole cause, or can they demonstrate with 90-99% certainty that we are the primary cause?
The point is, that climate change is happening at a much faster rate than it has in the past. You're right, it will get warmer or cooler - eventually. The point that you're missing is that it actually matters how quickly that happens. If it happens slowly enough, people and animals can adapt.
However, it's not linear. If you want a decent discussion on W/m^2, NASA has a reasonably well-written article on it. There's also some good news in there - the rate of increase of total forcing has actually gone down somewhat since 1980. (Unfortunately, the total forcing is still going up, but at least it's not accelerating anymore!)
Are you suggesting that Galileo was bucking the scientific trend when he "speculated" the Earth was round? Please tell me you're not suggesting that.
Galileo's "converts" were nothing compared to the number of scientists who DO buy the flat earth argument.
Wow, you said it twice. Please, please tell me you weren't being serious. Please?
Here's a hint: Galileo was born in 1564. You know that kitschy poem about 1492? Furthermore, the myth that Columbus disproved the Earth being flat is also a myth.
Perhaps you're thinking about the Sun going around the Earth instead of vice-versa?
Think of it like snopes. "They predicted global cooling" if by "they" you mean a handful of scientists, and by "predicted" you mean in an unspecified future. Usually, the people posting this want you to infer that "they" refers to a scientific consensus, and "predicted" means "soon". Yes, certain magazines totally got this wrong. So, in the sense that the poster usual means when they say "They predicted global cooling", it is not true.
If you follow up on the senate article, you will no doubt find that many of those scientists have had their positions misrepresented. Arguing against "catastrophic" anthropogenic global warming is not the same as arguing against anthropogenic global warming. Has the media exaggerated the science? Absolutely! Are there flaws in global warming theories? Yes! Just like there are flaws in evolution, relativity, and quantum mechanics. Keep in mind how biased the source you're posting from is (Inhofe), and then follow up on what the scientists are actually saying. Pick one of those scientists if you like, and I'll show you how his or her position was misrepresented.
There's a mix of problems - and part of the problem is Congress passing unconstitutional laws. That seems more common recently than the Supreme Court making bad calls.
And I agree with your original sentiment. I just like pointing out that 7/9ths of the "activist" Supreme Court were appointed by Republican Presidents. Historically, the Supreme Court has been very much above politics. I think this will mostly continue, although it has been corrupted a little bit recently.
I'm not 100% sure, but I'm reasonably certain that in none of those cases was the Supreme Court primarily composed of Democratic appointments. 7 out of 9 of the Supreme Court Justices (even before Bush took office) were appointed by Republicans. Granted, several of these Republican appointments have disappointed other Republicans. Many of them had to be reasonably moderate because Congress was controlled by Democrats at the time of their appointment.
This was largely about the 2004 elections. Here's one quote FTFA:
There was more than failing to help the Wilson campaign. In the 2004 presidential election, Republican operatives blocked a quarter-million new voters nationwide from voting on grounds they brought the wrong IDs to the poles. To justify this massive blockade, Republican officials wanted Iglesias to arrest some voters to create a high publicity show trial. Iglesias went along with the game. Just before the 2004 election, he held a press conference announcing the creation of a vote fraud task force. But the prosecutor drew the line at arresting innocent voters.
Many articles have indeed addressed this issue. What you believe is irrelevant. Until the PATRIOT ACT, their appointment needed to be approved by Congress.
Slashdot Mirror
You're not what? I think something got lost in translation there. (I'm not deliberately taking you out of context. I really have no idea what you're saying you're not.
You complain about the complex models, so I mention it's based on simple principles. Then you complain that the principles are too simple. Let me know if I've gotten something wrong here.
Originally, in the 60's, it was based off simple thermodynamical principles. That's enough to get the general idea. To determine how bad it will get, however, you have to understand both positive and negative feedback cycles. That's where the complex models come into play. Are they complete? No. However, they've been pretty good at setting a lower bound for how bad things are going to be. Recently, it's been vogue in certain circles to call these models into question by pointing out how they've been too conservative. However, the models have been designed to underpredict. They couldn't account for the effects of underwater streams under the ice, so they treated them as if they would have no effect knowing that the real result would be only worse. This was mentioned explicitly in the IPCC reports.
As I've said elsewhere, "the best is the enemy of the good" (Voltaire). Don't hold your breath waiting for perfect models. However, they're already good.
It depends on what you mean by "open to persuasion". After a certain age, my experience indicates quite the opposite. However, in this case, it does seem that many actual skeptics (people who genuinely hadn't made up their mind), are being convinced. Many others are just following the herd. Unfortunate reason, but it's human nature. I predict that within my lifetime, there won't be many more people who believe that the current global warming cycle is "natural" than who believe the Earth goes around the Sun. That won't come until it becomes much more expensive to fix, unfortunately, but I think it will come.
Assuming you have not yet accepted AGW, what's your threshold? What sort of evidence would it take to convince you?
I had assumed he was looking for the West Indies. Maybe that's just what he thought he found? I'm obviously no Columbus expert.
When you have a few years worth of data on a planet whose orbital period is between one and two years, it's silly to talk about it's climate showing any kind of trend. We've got 7 planets in this solar system besides Earth. At random, you would expect some to be showing signs of warming and others to be showing signs of cooling. To use Mars as evidence that global warming on Earth isn't anthropogenic is silly and that's what they're debunking.
This stuff was predicted well before these "inaccurate models" you're decrying based off of simple thermodynamic principles.
Where in the world are you pulling that number from? Inhofe? Perhaps you mean 0.4 degC since 1940 or approximately 0.7 degF? Certainly you don't really mean .04 degrees.
There are two levels of doubts. (1) That we are most likely contributing significantly to global warming. Find one climatologist who disagrees with this, and find it in their own words. (I.e., don't trust people like Inhofe.) (2) That we are beyond a reasonable doubt contributing to the majority of global warming. You'll definitely find "more than just a few" climatologists who disagree with this. So, if you were in charge what would be your criteria? 90% of all climatologists have to believe that we are the primary cause beyond a reasonable doubt? 95%? 99%? 100%?!?
You'll never have complete agreement about anything. To paraphrase Voltaire: "The best is the enemy of the good". Don't hold your breath waiting for perfection.
There were two parts: (1) Particulate pollution is contributing to global cooling. This is still held to be true. Only a handful of scientists thought this contribution was significant, and one (maybe more) published a book about it. (2) We are past due for an ice age. AFAIK, this is still held to be true by a majority of scientists.
Whose doubt? Yours or people in a position to make that claim? Because most climatologists would say that's already been show beyond a reasonable doubt, I'm pretty sure.
Absolutely. And it's in the climate journals if you care to read about it. There is plenty of evidence to support AGW. It's not just about correlation. Heck, it's not even primarily about correlation.Did someone mention Greenland yet again?
Skeptics are those who are open to either side of the debate. They do exist. However, most prominent self-labeled "skeptics" are not. If you only believe that AGW can't be real, then you are not a "skeptic" because you've already made up your mind. You are a denier. Or, if you feel that word is loaded, choose another term that means "I refuse to believe" rather than simply "I'm not sure". I suppose, "debunker" is fine, if one assumes (as presumably they do) that they're right. Of course, once you've decided that, you probably can't call yourself a "skeptic", either.
That moves you from merely correlation to causation. It's nice to see the goal posts moved yet again. Do they actually have to prove they are the sole cause, or can they demonstrate with 90-99% certainty that we are the primary cause?
The point is, that climate change is happening at a much faster rate than it has in the past. You're right, it will get warmer or cooler - eventually. The point that you're missing is that it actually matters how quickly that happens. If it happens slowly enough, people and animals can adapt.
However, it's not linear. If you want a decent discussion on W/m^2, NASA has a reasonably well-written article on it. There's also some good news in there - the rate of increase of total forcing has actually gone down somewhat since 1980. (Unfortunately, the total forcing is still going up, but at least it's not accelerating anymore!)
Here's a hint: Galileo was born in 1564. You know that kitschy poem about 1492? Furthermore, the myth that Columbus disproved the Earth being flat is also a myth.
Perhaps you're thinking about the Sun going around the Earth instead of vice-versa?
Think of it like snopes. "They predicted global cooling" if by "they" you mean a handful of scientists, and by "predicted" you mean in an unspecified future. Usually, the people posting this want you to infer that "they" refers to a scientific consensus, and "predicted" means "soon". Yes, certain magazines totally got this wrong. So, in the sense that the poster usual means when they say "They predicted global cooling", it is not true.
Did you read past the first sentence?
If you follow up on the senate article, you will no doubt find that many of those scientists have had their positions misrepresented. Arguing against "catastrophic" anthropogenic global warming is not the same as arguing against anthropogenic global warming. Has the media exaggerated the science? Absolutely! Are there flaws in global warming theories? Yes! Just like there are flaws in evolution, relativity, and quantum mechanics. Keep in mind how biased the source you're posting from is (Inhofe), and then follow up on what the scientists are actually saying. Pick one of those scientists if you like, and I'll show you how his or her position was misrepresented.
That was the 16th myth on the list.
There's a mix of problems - and part of the problem is Congress passing unconstitutional laws. That seems more common recently than the Supreme Court making bad calls.
And I agree with your original sentiment. I just like pointing out that 7/9ths of the "activist" Supreme Court were appointed by Republican Presidents. Historically, the Supreme Court has been very much above politics. I think this will mostly continue, although it has been corrupted a little bit recently.
I'm not 100% sure, but I'm reasonably certain that in none of those cases was the Supreme Court primarily composed of Democratic appointments. 7 out of 9 of the Supreme Court Justices (even before Bush took office) were appointed by Republicans. Granted, several of these Republican appointments have disappointed other Republicans. Many of them had to be reasonably moderate because Congress was controlled by Democrats at the time of their appointment.
That was beautiful. It brought a tear to my eye.
Many articles have indeed addressed this issue. What you believe is irrelevant. Until the PATRIOT ACT, their appointment needed to be approved by Congress.