Global Warming 2.0 (thread reopened; let's keep it civil)

[Bj]

Observations of a raising CO2 level and raising temperatures, do not explain that it's humans who have caused it,

Ahem...

You can see that the global temperature, and CO2 concentrations have varied over the last century, but just at the very end has it spiked way past 'normal range.'

Hmm... it looks like the as soon as the 'fossil fuels' started going up, everything else did as well.

 

[Moonwalker]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/Klimadiagramm_hadley_1850_2009.svg

You can't just say: it is all natural.

I still say that we don't know.

100 years is nothing of importance in the climate history of the Earth.


-----Post Added-----

Weather is not climate, weather is not climate...

Climate is weather over a certain period of time. Saying that climate is not weather is like saying that a climate change will effect weather change. But climate change already is the result of weather change.

 

[Urwumpe]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/Klimadiagramm_hadley_1850_2009.svgI still say that we don't know.

Yes, we don't know 100%. But some people have less things, they don't know.

Also, if you are so skeptical - can you tell which graphic of the two you posted, is no scientific plot?

 

[Moonwalker]

I'm not really sceptical. I just have a different, less daramtic few. If I go away from man-made numbers and diagrams, and take a look to reality, I don't see that the climate is going to be worse or became "wrong" in the past. Climate science was wrong the past, but it is never wrong in the present obviously.

 

[Omhra]

To beat a dead animal with a stick...

on the videos...
[She] did not understand why there needs to be action taken now.... She is confused.
--Hey I was going to address that but I will do it latter... now... not now...
---I mean to expedite progress... nah... latter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[He] believes in observations not theory. Observation is truth!

Poor Einstein, he should have kept that job as a clerk... I mean to go about thinking stuff not observed... The apple falling off the tree is obviously all we need... relativity... nah, you cannot observe that...
And Pasteur... LIFE IS SPONTANEOUS YOU WEIRDO
...unless... you have instruments created to observe with the sensitivity required on your hypothesis... then if observed... a theory. Of course you could not have observed it without first thinking it.

So the whole argument on those vids is ridiculous...

A few facts that you cannot damage science for.
1 Science will be ALWAYS incomplete; unless we get to know the mind of God)
2 Observation will ALWAYS be incomplete; unless you are omniscient.
AND
3 Theory will ALWAYS be the closest thing to truth we can have; unless you establish a law which is absolutely predictable.. or you choose faith and even then faith is not truth.

This tactic of discrediting science for being honest and conceding that we do not know all things is getting old and falling apart at the seams. Those who use it are looking more and more ignorant. Primarily because they set out to prove that complacency is better than progression and that limited understanding is complete misunderstanding.
But with the oil/coal companies looming over this whole issue... seems that a progressive steady shift to sustainable energies would hurt only a few groups...Yet, those same companies ( who would not think twice about letting go all their employees if something more profitable came up ) immediately cry "think of our employees, they'd be out of a job."

 

[Urwumpe]

Climate science was wrong the past, but it is never wrong in the present obviously.

You sound like a mother: They always remember what you did wrong once and forget quickly what you do right.

Has climate science been wrong in the past: Yes. I just remember the famous global cooling prediction, which is obviously no longer holding true.

But does that mean, it has to be wrong all the time? Sure not.

 

[TSPenguin]

Usaly this would be one of my TVtipps, but I think this is appropiate here.
German Television in a few hours.

VOX, Mittwoch, heute, Magazin/Dokumentation 23:45 - 00:45 Uhr
BBC Exklusiv
Der Klimakrieg, Folge 3: Die Folgen der Erwärmung (Climate Wars - The past, the present, the future, Part 3)

 

[Moonwalker]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WWpH0lmcxA&feature=related"]YouTube - Global Warming - what do the numbers show.[/ame]

 

[FordPrefect]

The upside of GW?

http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/9/1703/2009/acpd-9-1703-2009.html

 

[Urwumpe]

About the reoccurring theme of media reporting wrong about this or that side of the climate research... a nice complaint by a IPCC author.

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Mediarology/MediarologyFrameset.html

 

[Omhra]

Exactly right!
Can't have the donkeys leading the carrot.

And never forget;
"If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." Anatole Thibault.

 

[Urwumpe]

"If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." Anatole Thibault.

We have a less favorable quote in German about that. It is translated roughly as: "People, eat excrements! Millions of flies can't be wrong!"

 

[Omhra]

yeah... sheer numbers of (I hesitate) believers... or constant Pavlovian repetition mold a "truth". Hysterical consensus I call it.

A big part of this problem is that a lot of disciplines are coming together as they should ( ...I think) and this is making it confusing to grasp the bulk of the answer/s science has discovered; while in our ever-more specialized labor practices.. our way of making our living (flips a burger) by pure pear politics and social strata some possible topics of discussion become unpopular.
Duh sort of thing really.
Except that Sociology is mute... and must ask questions that hold to the flames all arguments as to the benefit (or detriment if you really must) of utter progress into healthy infrastructure and economics. Without getting lost in politics.
It is also possible that political science is not really operating under the directive to pursue truth and has settled for power.

In any case Scientists have to synthesize their finding in ways that people tolerate. And by that I mean hit their attention span.
hit them with cleverness of explanation.
5 minute rounds Jack!

And when they don't get it, send them to a corner with a pointy hat.

 

[Moonwalker]

...Millions of flies can't be wrong!"

Less then ever a few hundred scientists. But consensus is a political concept.

 

[Urwumpe]

Less then ever a few hundred scientists. But consensus is a political concept.

yeah. We are all individuals, right?

Good that the scientific method does not care about how many scientists agree to a hypothesis to find out if it is right.

Important is which theory holds water.

 

[Moonwalker]

Important is which theory holds water.

At least not the IPCC prophecies

 

[Urwumpe]

At least not the IPCC prophecies

Do you want to bet? :rofl:

 

[Omhra]

Urwumpe;
Don't get sucked down to the depths of... ...Superstition driven chatter...

Moonwalker;

You are still to show why you figure your "story" is correct... other than shaking your head... and saying "prophesy"...
And when you say the rocks offer only a limited measure... is that in the obvious sense or do you have some specifics you could elaborate upon?

 

[Moonwalker]

Claiming how the climate system will be in the wide future, while we cannot precisely predict its future state even five days ahead, is not more than just prophesies. People are free to believe in it, or not. Just like some scientists believe in it, and some not. The climate does not care anyway.

There is no correct story yet.

 

[Omhra]

Moonwalker;
That is because you don't understand the scientific process...
To say that one cannot predict weather in the short term therefore you cannot predict climate long term suffers from cum hoc propter hoc...
...an old trick really...
First: weather and climate are not the same thing... (we told you about nine times on this one thread alone) ...weather is to climate as oxygen is to air... Can't follow each oxygen molecule's path, but I bet my life I will encounter some O2 on the way to the market.
And second: (following your logic best I can) The prediction of eddies and Rossby waves, tornadoes and dust devil's individual behavior is not possible in a far future, see these things are more close to weather than to climate... but I can absolutely predict the climate for next week... it will be a lot like today, all but identical... the weather at aunt Sallie's ... can't help you there.
But you equate the two phenomena (ridiculous) and then use that equation to claim your argument follows true...
Fallacy.

CUM HOC PROPTER HOC...
Holds no water...

Now; About the Rocks... quit hiding... you brought it up and I will call you on it until you address it; what is the problem with their history telling. And Ice-Cores... Also tell me how the measurements are flawed... not just say that they are... Tell us how it is so.