Climate Change is a Complex Subject, Not Just a Political Football

I wasn't applying for a position.
I was claiming for myself, unimpeachable qualifications to judge the difference between real and frivolous statements.

And Hoyt gave you the verbal bird.
I, myself, behaved as a gentleman as always, respectful even when I'm cynical. ;P

 

I wasn't ignoring you Michael.
Imaginarynumber is an engaging debate opponent. I was engaged.

Almost all of the current proposed 'solutions" involve even more and heavier handed govt than we currently have. And wealth redistribution schemes (carbon taxes).
I'm opposed to the big govt we ALREADY have.
More is foolish and dangerous IMHO.

 

I don't deny facts, such as the history of AGW I posted.
I point out errors that have crept into the argument.

The early researchers statements were always speculative. Might, Could, Possibly, ect.

and Plass started the cyclic argument that simplifies into , worked as a logic problem, reduction to common denominator, becomes "AGW exists because it does" Not a fair argument! and not defensible. The same cyclic thinking pervades the "proofs" of AGW.



Even though the IPCC SPECULATES that the MWP may NOT have been global, since they HOPE it wasn't, because that would puncture THEIR theory, it can just as easily HAVE been global!
Evidence like a warm Greenland and China of the same period suggests it WAS global. And ancient maps show much less ice or more land, in antartica.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=150584

"Schöner had reproduced and included the Antarctic islands of Siple and Carney, two islands currently buried under ice and snow and locked into the Getz Ice Shelf off Western Antarctica. Schöner’s depiction of the islands is remarkable. The islands are accurately aligned, positioned and proportioned in respect to each other and in respect to his rendering of the Antarctic continent. "


In 1965 Hubert Lamb, one of the first paleoclimatologists, published research based on data from botany, historical document research and meteorology combined with records indicating prevailing temperature and rainfall in England around 1200 and around 1600. He proposed that "Evidence has been accumulating in many fields of investigation pointing to a notably warm climate in many parts of the world, that lasted a few centuries around A.D. 1000–1200, and was followed by a decline of temperature levels till between 1500 and 1700 the coldest phase since the last ice age occurred."[12]

The warm period became known as the MWP, and the cold period was called the Little Ice Age (LIA). However, this view was questioned by other researchers; the IPCC First Assessment Report of 1990 discussed the "Medieval Warm Period around 1000 AD (which may not have been global) and the Little Ice Age which ended only in the middle to late nineteenth century."[13] The IPCC Third Assessment Report from 2001 summarised research at that time, saying "…current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame"


So YOUR contention that climate anomalies can't occur over a 200+ year period is REFUTED! You can deny MWP but there is no way to prove pro or con. So, I'll keep MY opinion, and you YOURS!

 

Unfortunately, you aren't going to find a fifteen-minute fix (or the global equivalent) for man-made global warming, no matter how good you are at problem solving. Especially if you refuse to admit the source of the problem.... You won't save a boat by taking measures to stop condensation, no matter how creative they are, if the water in the bilges is coming from a leak instead.

Regarding your claim that climate change theory is a circular argument, let's quickly review the scientific method. A scientist starts with Observation and research on the subject at hand. From that, he develops a Hypothesis, a possible explanation for what he's observed.

He tests the hypothesis by using it to make a Prediction, or multiple predictions, and comes to a Conclusion based on the results. That conclusion is fair game for anyone to invalidate. If no one can successfully do so, it's eventually accepted - but only tentatively, because no scientific theory can ever be proven correct; it can only be disproven.

If I understand correctly, you're saying that coming up with a hypothesis, then testing it and finding your conclusions support it, is somehow a 'circular argument.' But without at least a tentative hypothesis to test, scientists are just blindly stumbling around in the dark.

 

Dear Mr. Yobarnacle,

Upon reflection, some in our department feel that we may have been a little hasty in summarily rejecting your kind offer to assist us as a PROBLEM SOLVER. Therefore, if your services are still being offered, we would like for you to submit a proposal to our offices by 1800 hours, 2 September 2013, laying out your plan for solving the following problems:

1) Is the phenomena commonly called Climate Change real?

2) Is the phenomena commonly called Ocean Acidification real?

3) If either exists, are either of them threatening humanity, directly or indirectly?

4) If either of them are threatening, specify the nature and extent of the threat?

5) If the threat(s) are severe, what range of options might humanity have to mitigate or adapt to the threat(s)?

6) For each problem please provide a metric by which we can judge whether your solution is practical, timely, cost-effective, and permanent.

7) Please provide us with an estimate of your expected time frame, expenses, and desired compensation.

We regret any embarrassment we may have caused you by our earlier short-sighted dismissal of your obvious talents, and we look forward to a mutually beneficial relationship between you and planet Earth.

Again, we thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Chief Truth and Consequences Officer,
Department of Hopeful Solutions

P.S.
This message will self-destruct in five seconds.

 

1) Is the phenomena commonly called Climate Change real? Yes

2) Is the phenomena commonly called Ocean Acidification real? Evidence suggests yes.

3) If either exists, are either of them threatening humanity directly or indirectly? Threatening? or providing stimulus to overcome obstacles once again?

We ended up with micro electronics and personal computers and cell phones as a spinoff from space exploration. Despite this cite opinion.

http://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/jp_950525.htm

Might the effort and R&D necessary to solve climate change or adapt to it be a GOOD thing?

4) If either of them are threatening, specify the nature and extent of the threat?
I'm NOT a know it all!

As to providing solutions, I AM involved in SEARCHING.

But to quote my debate coach from school, 'When challenged to offer a solution as an alternative to the solution you argue against, reply that making counter proposals is NOT your position. Your position is your OPPONENT's proposal is unacceptable. You would be happy to consider other alternatives THEY may care to propose, but their proposal on the table was DEAD from your perspective!"
I won LOT'S of points with THAT tactic! li

 

That may be clever debate tactic, but it calls to mind a quote by NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman:

Mother Nature is just chemistry, biology and physics. You can’t sweet-talk her. You can’t talk her up, you can’t talk her down. You can’t say “Mother Nature, we’re having a recession. Could you take a year off?” Mother Nature always bats last, and she always bats 1000. Do not mess with Mother Nature.​

Nevertheless, I do appreciate your (tepid?) interest in searching for solutions.

 

I said NONE of that.
I quoted Plass writing "He warned that climate change could be "a serious problem to future generations" — although not for several centuries. Following the usual pattern, Plass was mainly interested in the way variations in CO2 might solve the mystery of the ice ages. "If at the end of this century the average temperature has continued to rise," he wrote, then it would be "firmly established" that CO2 could cause climate change.(

He is saying he predicts global warming because of increasing CO2, which he thinks MIGHT or COULD cause such warming.
Then he proposes, If it gets warmer as predicted, that will be "firmly established" as possibility.

He ignores other possible reasons for ice ages and growing warm again, because he thinks he MAY have discovered that CO2 COULD be involved. And since man was pumping increasing amounts of CO2 into the air, if warming resulted, that would confirm CO2 could be a factor.
Again, he doesn't allow for any other cause of warming.

To write it as a logic statement.. well maybe better
first read this:
http://www.edurite.com/kbase/boolean-logic-calculator

You end up mathematically with
then AGW=AGW
circular logic
from.. if the globe gets warmer then global warming occurred.

The same argument gets repeated with different words over and over.

but since there is a plateau of temperature rise for at least 10, maybe as much as 20 years, but ever increasing CO2 emissions during this time. POP goes the bubble!

If NOT AGW
then AGW= NOT

 

Cracker want a poly, squawk!

 

Tepid?
I'm anything BUT tepid in rejecting UNACCEPTABLE solutions.

Am I smart enough to solve some of the worlds problems?
Probably not.
Am I trying?
well, My home is paid for and built of reinforced cement with glass block curved windows. Non opening. There are decorative ventilation block courses at tops of walls, closable by placing a seal panel in the recesses.
Floors are tile. Doors are aluminum or steel.
The kitchen is separated from the house by a breezeway.
a complete 2nd story total porch with a roof of fallen palm fronds (palapa) shades the single story house below. 4 bedrooms 2 baths.
We have a roof garden.
My boats are 40+year old fiberglass, and sail/electric drive.
I'm working on alternative energy sources. Thermoelectric generation.
i'm debating YOU here. So involved in discourse.
I vote conservative. Responsible, unobtrusive, frugal govt.
I perform a vital service to the world, transporting goods and raw materials from where they are abundant to where they are needed.
And my family is successfully raised, productive, and educated.
my wife and I love each other and are happy together.

so, I ask YOU, how am I doing?

 

If none of that is what you were trying to say, perhaps you should back up and start over - because you don't seem to be communicating successfully.

Obviously, there's an unspoken "barring other explanations that may arise" that goes along with Plass' statement. Which by the way, is a single one-sentence quote. Without seeing it in context, I'm wary of accepting it as a summation of what he believed - much less accepting it as proof of the approach taken by all the other scientists involved in climatology over the years.

Your repeated claim that scientists haven't even bothered to look at other possible causes is inaccurate and misleading, to put it mildly. And I don't believe anyone expects CO2 levels and global warming to be completely in synch at all times, with every 1% increase in CO2 creating instant corresponding increase in temperature. There's nothing surprising about the fact that the increases aren't always linear. Temperatures plateau at times, and rise abruptly at other times, particularly since the increase in CO2 isn't the only factor involved. That's why we look at overall trends.

 

What is it you're arguing about? You complain your money is being wasted by the EPA redicously claiming ammonia exhalations are causing climate change, but show a reference to an article that is not about climate change or ammonia exhalations, but about liquid ammonia and feedlot manure runoff.
I don't understand what your point is.

 

And how is that statement illogical?

You're arguments seem to mirror what you find wrong with others' arguments. You say they are only based on 'could or might' but then argue

You demand absolute proof of AGW, but agree there is GW, and concede that

on ocean acidification, so you accept evidence, but won't accept evidence that any of this is anthropogenic.

You say Plass

and that

but then you declare a circular logic trap of increasing CO2 MUST increase temperatures or the bubble pops, ignore any possible reasons for the plateau of temperature rise, and simplistically declare the whole theory as bogus.

 

And from Troy

Apparently I am NOT communicating very well.

Climate has always changed and is now. Done. We all agree, I think.

Man releases CO2 that has been buried for eons by burning fossil fuels. no one argues.

Climate change may manifest as severe weather and/or warmer climates.
It "may".
May, could, might, possibly, are speculative.

Related to SPECULATIVE
Synonyms
academic (also academical), conjectural, hypothetical, theoretical, suppositional
Antonyms
actual, factual, real
Related Words
alleged, assumed, presumed, presupposed, proposed, supposed, unproved, unproven, untested; debatable, moot; abstract, conceptual, intellectual, metaphysical; nonclinical, nonpractical; nonempirical
Near Antonyms
clinical, practical; concrete, defined, definite, distinct; attested, authenticated, confirmed, demonstrated, established, proven, substantiated, tested, time-tested, validated, verified; empirical (also empiric), nonspeculative, nontheoretical, observational.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/speculative#related-to-more


The argument that we can stop climate change by curtailing our emissions of CO2 is based on the notion we are CAUSING climate change with our CO2.

There is never been proof CO2 causes climate change.
The only PROOF that has been offered is, If it's possible CO2 causes warming and climate change, and we emit more CO2 and it gets warmer, then obviously WE CAUSED IT. Because getting warmer is obviously a result of the increased CO2!
Don't you see the tail chasing in those arguments?

My point is, that is bad logic. But if you ACCEPT that as logical, then you must accept the obverse, that without significant warming but increased emissions, obviously the CO2 DIDN'T cause warming.
You can't have it both ways.
You cannot say CO2 causes warming whether we observe warming or not!
With THAT illogic, the circle gets tighter. So tight it appears as a dot.
Man made CO2 must be stopped or reduced. period. whether it's causing a problem or not. period.

I heartily appreciate the research that is going on. I believe we need more. I do not believe we know enough about climate and climate change to draw conclusions as to how we can fix it, if we COULD fix it. Or SHOULD fix it. Might be a GOOD thing. Uncomfortable, but beneficial to mankind in the long term.

I understand people are worried.

Worry is the interest paid on trouble before the principle is due.

Worrying don't accomplish nuthin!

Calm yourselves and let the scientists figure it out.

And when you read, might, could, possible, may happen, ect...don't internalize that as Does, will, must, caused, ect
cheers. I hope it's clearer now.

 

Again, you're saying things that simply aren't true. There's plenty of proof that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that holds in heat; the more of it there is the more heat it holds in; and the mechanism by which it does so is well understood.

Scientists have figured it out. That's why so many people are worried.... The problem is getting non-scientists to believe it.