And the Nobel Prize for Sticking Your Fingers in Your Ears and Yelling “I Can’t Hear You” Goes To….
Case 1: In 1997 a prominent scientist made a bet with a colleague over a complex black hole issue that physicists were trying to figure out. This bet was very public and given the egos involved in the field of advanced quantum science, the stakes were huge.
Case 2: In a climate-related thread on S&R, a “skeptic” was asked point-blank: “What evidence would you accept that global warming is real? What tests would you have to see, in order to change your view?” This is a straight-up establishment of terms for consideration of any scientific question: what is evidence in favor of the hypothesis and what evidence disproves the hypothesis?
In Case 2, the alleged skeptic launched into a flurry of bobbing and weaving that would have dizzied Muhammad Ali in his prime.
What happened in Case 1? The prominent scientist, in 2004, conceded that he had lost the bet and paid up. Publicly. Who was this prominent scientist, by the way? You may have heard of him. It’s a guy named Stephen Hawking, and the “variety of cosmic radiation” in question is technically known as “Hawking Radiation.” You can read more about the wager here.
The skeptic denialist? Well, he’s like all denialists. He pretends to be a skeptic, but no real skeptic would ever dodge the “what would prove the point in your mind?” question. That question defines the very character of skepticism. The instant you dodge that question, you’re put of the closet in a nukular-powered neon jump suit.
What he would say, were he to be honest, is that “there is no evidence that would convince me I’m wrong since any such evidence would automatically be false.”
It’s called “dogma,” folks.
For now, I’ll leave it to the reader to consider what may be learned from contrasting the approach of a Nobel laureate with the approach of a faux-skeptic. Then again, what do I know. Maybe your garden-variety comment thread denialist is smarter than Stephen Hawking….
lullaby pit 
I loved the denialist’s response to the question, “what evidence would you accept?” The response was, “any.” In one tiny word (to his credit, at least it wasn’t monosyllabic) he essentially said that not one single, solitary shred of existing evidence counts. In that one word, he exonerated himself of any responsibility of even having to cite a single bit of that disputed evidence. It’s a pity the remainder of his denialism was so verbose. To be able to duck that much responsibility for rational thought in one tiny word is a feat of efficiency with which to be reckoned.
I find the ‘experiment’ with the skeptic very eye opening! As my Dad would tell me, if one person shares a certain opinion or judgement that is reflected by countless others.
I might have to try that one out!
“”To be able to duck that much responsibility for rational thought in one tiny word is a feat of efficiency with which to be reckoned.””
The question was asked in context of AGW. The answer was correct, no empirical evidence can be cited directly establishing that Co2 emissions are responsible for planetary climate.
It is not that I am exonerated from appraising AGW evidence, it is that after having done so, aware of science that does dispute the theory I have made a knowledgeable decision.
The Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, Hansen Et el, 1981 is manifestly scientific rubbish.
Well, Markus, I’ll ask you here:
What evidence would you accept?
Just as I don’t believe in ghosts, but some evidence would prove their existence to me – what specific evidence would you have to see, for you to accept global warming?
And remember, this is a hypothetical question. We’re just exploring possibilities. So an answer like “any” doesn’t fit this type of question.
That radiative transfer from the atmosphere to the surface is not both fixed and minimal for any level of atmospheric CO2 and other photon-absorbing gases.
That atmospheric temperature can’t be set by pressure and solar irradiance, regardless of the photon storing capacity of atmospheric gases.
That Co2 can retain more photons than the quantity available to it from LW radiation moving to space at speed of light.
[Ed: prior incomplete comment removed]
Okay, thanks for that answer. As I understand that, you’d need to see evidence that:
– the atmosphere can transfer heat to the ground, to a sufficient degree
– the rise in the atmosphere’s temperature can’t be due to an increase in solar output or an increase in atmospheric pressure
– that CO2 can “retain more photons” than what is present from light-wave radiation. (With this last, I’m not fully sure what you’re getting at. C02 can be heated and retain heat, like any other form of matter, whether the heat comes from impact with energetic particles such as photons OR from impact with other, hotter matter. I don’t see how being heated and staying hot means it has to “retain more photons”…but ok, that’s your answer.)
Would you accept any other evidence that showed the global temperature has risen greatly in the past 100 years?
If so, would you accept any other evidence that linked this rise to human activity?
I said noting about heat, I said nothing about temperature, and you know noting but semantics.
“”Would you accept any other evidence that showed the global temperature has risen greatly in the past 100 years?””
We know T has risen, We know climate changes, We know why, We know it’s not man.
You don’t know science apart from the rhetoric you have been taught.
Here’s a starting point for your second point, Markus: Venus’ climate V: How scientists know Venus’ surface temperature is a result of greenhouse heating.
(There’s a consistent error I made through out all 5 parts of my Venus series that I haven’t gone back and fixed yet, namely that I used a value for the Stefan-Boltzmann Constant that is about 20% too high. However, the error is consistent through the entire series and given the orders of magnitude involved, the correction only makes the calculation-based conclusions even stronger.)
You’re third point is not possible because it breaks conservation of energy. That you would ask for it, however, indicates that you don’t understand the mechanism of back-scattering properly.
As for your first part, if you treat a portion of the atmosphere as a black body at a given temperature radiating into a sphere, you can approximate how much energy that portion of the atmosphere would radiate back to the surface where it could be reabsorbed. A sphere of general atmosphere with surface area of 1 m2 at a temperature of 287 K (14C, or ~57F) will emit 384.69 W/m^2 (according to J=σT4) if treated as a black body. At a position immediately above the Earth’s surface, approximately half that will reach the surface since we can approximate the Earth’s surface as a flat plane that close to it, so call it 192.35 W emitted that will reach the Earth’s surface somewhere, of which the bulk will be immediately below the blob of air we’re talking about. Given a large enough number of adjacent blobs of air and the amount of power at any point on the Earth’s surface would be about 192.35 W from surface air.
This is a simplification of course – the atmosphere isn’t a black body, this assumes some amount of thermal equilibrium, and the energy for the atmosphere to emit has to come from somewhere. The fact of the matter is that this back-radiated power is already included in the equations that helped create the temperature of the atmosphere in the first place – the temperature of the surface beneath the atmosphere, energy being added from higher levels in the atmosphere and/or the sun, etc. CO2 levels partly define the temperature too, by reducing the rate of energy emission from the atmosphere back into space. And the more CO2 there is, the lower the rate of loss. And with slower energy loss comes a greater chance of the photonic energy being converted into some other type of energy, like atomic and molecular vibration, aka thermal energy.
Ah Brian, you need to read up more.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/nikolov-zeller-reply-eschenbach/#comments
And Sir, you need find out what the law of conservation really means.
How can earth be equated with a black body that retains no heat when we have Oceans?
And what, exactly, does the Law of Conservation of Energy really mean, Markus? “Energy can neither be created nor destroyed” is pretty clear to me (excepting, of course, nuclear reactions). Applied to your third point, it means that that all the energy at an interface has to be equal (including energy that is converted from kinetic into potential, ie stored, energy).
As for black bodies, they’re simply useful examples, given that there are none that exist. In many cases, the black body represents a perfect system. In the case of all my Venus posts, if a perfect system can’t be made to work right, then an imperfect system can’t either. However, I didn’t claim that the Earth was a perfect black body in my prior post, did I?
I said noting about heat, I said nothing about temperature, and you know noting but semantics.
Well, Markus, when you said “radiative transfer” and “atmosphere temperature” were you not referring to heat? If not, what else were you referring to?
When you say “T has risen”, isn’t that exactly the same as saying something’s temperature has risen – which is also exactly the same as saying that something has acquired more heat? If not, what else did you mean by saying that “T has risen”?
…so it seems to go. Eventually I believe you can reach a point of clarity, if you continue asking pointed questions that ignore side tangents – and insults, which also serve as a distraction.
So I like to also avoid responding to the insults directly, as it’s both more honest *and* probably more irritating to continue along the central point.
Then if the only response is silence, well, that’s something too. : )
As may be obvious, I’ve also often noticed that the sudden appearance of insults can be a good cue. You’re getting a defensive emotional reaction, because you’re bringing to the surface the exact area of uncomfortableness that the ideology is protecting.
Anyway, that’s my style…I really should put this effort into more productive areas. But puncturing this nonsense is just so addictive to me.
Science is never a fixed paradigm. Let us move on.
Solar radiation ‘T’ increases with altitude, BB’s are those that absorb and radiate with same intensity ans corresponding T.
Real colourful bodies reelect, scatter,absorb, convert and emit radiation energy ardording to the incident radiation direction, spectrum and body matter reflectivity, absorbitivity, emissivtivity and view factors.
The rate of EMR energy transfer from hot body is, TH, is Q, W=5.67 He (th + 273)4. But it may not be absorbed by all bodies that intercept it, as GHG’s theory assumes in particular hotter radiating bodies do not absorb colder radiation and emits it more intensly, as GHG black radiation the theory assumes.
Hit for you brother scientist.. Hansen’s 15 + 18 is effect not the cause of Earth’s T.
Science is never a fixed paradigm. Let us move on.
Hey, everybody, watch me explain, in detail, the primary dynamic driving the evolution of all human history: “The more things change, the more they stay the same! Let us move on.”
Markus, I can’t make heads or tails of the equation you’re trying to write. LaTeX is your friend for equations – try building it here: http://www.codecogs.com/latex/eqneditor.php
Sorry about the double post.
PS: jim x, if you have better things to do in science, pleases do, I love bursting tyres.
…and back we are again. 🙂
OK, Markus. I’ll repeat my most recent question.
You stated,
I said noting about heat, I said nothing about temperature
If so, when you mentioned “radiative transfer” and “atmosphere temperature” – what else were you referring to?
When you say “T has risen”, isn’t that exactly the same as saying something’s temperature has risen – which is also exactly the same as saying that something has acquired more heat?
If not, what else did you mean by saying that “T has risen”?
Fing semantics jim, you answe
How do bodies receive radiation from colder bodies?
Samuel. Stop it. (you’ll go blind).
Sensible people move with the changes. Those mired in dogma cannot.
Well ok. There we go. When caught saying something wrong, Markus refuses to address it. Either owning up to it is a simple mistake or proving he was actually right would work; Markus does neither.
That would imply that neither option is open to Markus; he can’t prove he’s right and he can’t admit he’s wrong. So, in the short-term it’s easier just to avoid the question and change the subject.
We’ve apparently reached the limits beyond which Markus is unwilling to go – because going past this point would force Markus to change his beliefs. Which would be healthy in the long-term, but is damaging to the ego and also painful towards whatever those beliefs are covering up.
Markus, feel free to prove me wrong in the above assessment at any time, by actually directly answering my question.
So it goes.
And finally, we come full circle. The point of Wufnik’s outstanding post (the one I link to in my post) and this post, which is a follow-on to it, is clearly this: a combination of weak education and and an Internet full of “information” has given us a generation of people like Markus. They have lots of data, but absolutely no ability to understand it, to think about it, and most importantly to comprehend its truth or falsity.
You cannot explain it to them. You cannot prove it to them. They are not only ignorant, they are gleefully and aggressively so. Their greatest accomplishment in life if to distract a smart person from meaningful activity.
So this thread has nicely illustrated the point from top to bottom. There is no productive conversation to be had with an idiot. Sometimes you engage them when you need them to illustrate your point for others in the audience, but you only talk to them as a tactic. They save you the trouble of fabricating a straw man.
We have to resolve to ignore them until such time as they demonstrate that they deserve a place in a conversation with those who are truly educated and capable of critical thought.
Now, back to that intelligent audience that makes this process worthwhile.
I have a question:
Given that geologists and physicists and many other types of brainy -ists have been able to calculate temperatures and barometric pressures spanning back millions of years, is there any empirical evidence that suggest or proves that the recent changes (and by recent I mean since we humans have been recording climate changes on a regular basis) in temperature and pressure are outside of the normal ebb and flow of Earth’s history and if so is it any different in comparison to the minimum temperatures seen during the last ice age?
“The answer was correct, no empirical evidence can be cited directly establishing that Co2 emissions are responsible for planetary climate.”
This is a grossly dishonest response. Science is based on the best inference from available evidence, not “direct” establishment, whatever that weasel word is supposed to mean. By using that qualifier, you have declared that no empirical evidence will ever satisfy you about AGW, even though you accept all sorts of indirect evidence for other things, such as the Big Bang and Booth shooting Lincoln. Experience shows that there are no intellectually honest AGW deniers, and you’re another data point.
“Ah Brian, you need to read up more.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/nikolov-zeller-reply-eschenbach/#comments”
It’s more than a little revealing that Markus would cite libertarian-ideology-driven anti-AGW polemicist tallbloke, who knows absolutely nothing about physics and makes such radical errors that even Roy Spencer has had to repeatedly correct him.
“How can earth be equated with a black body that retains no heat when we have Oceans?”
This is a rather inane question when Brian already answered it in the last paragraph of the post preceding yours, Markus. For more on this subject, see, e.g.,
https://www.math.duke.edu//education/prep02/teams/prep-15/index.html
“To refine our model, we need toconsider the fact that the planets are not blackbodies, but that they reflect some of the incident solar radiation (that’s why we can see them).
How would you expect a planet’s temperature to be influenced by the fact that some of the incident solar radiation is reflected back into space? In the box below, point to the line below that correctly completes the sentence.”
See if you can work it out, Markus. You may think, with Burt Rutan, that this reference to black bodies in a science lesson is part of some global conspiracy by climate scientists to get rich quick, but that would be the foolish arrogance of every flunked student who won’t take responsibility for his or her own ineptness.
What are you talking about Marcel. Physcology suggests you have delusions about conspiracy, I think I was discussing science. ok?
Thank you gentlemen, you have put your names down for a future shalacking.
Oh, Sam, I’ve clocked superiority on several goes on a Weiss scale. Your prejudice slip is showing.
The Englishman #20- firstly I don’t recall reading that anyone had plotted air pressure back for millions of years. Please provide a link to such a study.
Secondly, we know CO2 and other gases are greenhouse gases, that is, they intercept infra red radiation of various wavelengths. This proves that when you increase their concentration in the atmosphere more heat is retained.
Simple.
Even leaving that aside, we can tell that this isn’t natural because of such changes as the falling stratosphere, the lack of change in output of the sun, warming nights, and so on, as well as the known cycles related to ice ages. Without the current greenhouse gas concentrations and emissions, the earth would slide back into an ice age in about 10 to 15,000 years time. With them, that seems less likely.
Before I give my reply I want to be very clear that I’m very much on the fence when it comes to global warming.
I think there is evidence to show short term implications but also there’s evidence back through fossils that show CO2 levels have been more than ten times the level they are at today. Also, I feel that when you make a decision on a subject where you do not have the requisite level of wisdom or knowledge to use the information it doesn’t do do anyone any good to throw stones labeled with ignorance. ie: Non of us are qualified to claim an informed opinion on the subject. We’re all selecting whatever third party information suits our agenda.
On to my reply:
I am well aware what a greenhouse gas is and what it does in the atmosphere, but thanks for not giving me credit. And thanks for not answering my question.
When I am told about global warming I bring up the hybrid debate. Sure, a Prius has a better mpg rating than a Corolla and the emissions are lower, but a hybrid uses all of it’s gas in concentrated episodes and not evenly like its Toyota born brethren. Higher levels of emissions in concentrated areas isn’t going to be good for the land it bellows it’s waste products on. Then there’s the carbon footprint cost of a Prius versus a Hum Vee 2. If you’re only interested in what the vehicle puts out then sure, Prius wins every day, but from concept to disposal it’s a very different story.
What has this got to do with Carbon Dioxide? From my point of view it’s the same approach from both the right wing nuts and the left wing nuts alike. The sticker on the box says one thing, but the long view is very different. So in the case of a Hybrid it’s fine to discuss mean levels of gas use, but when it comes to carbon dioxide we are only allowed to duscuss the short term?
http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/palaeofiles/triassic/climate.htm –
Indications that CO2 levels were around ten times the level they are today – without man’s help.
For atmospheric pressures over time you’ll want to look in the direction of Dr. Carl Baugh.
To quote Sam: There is no productive conversation to be had with an idiot. Sometimes you engage them when you need them to illustrate your point for others in the audience, but you only talk to them as a tactic.
Is there a lesson here? I don’t know. I just thought I’d point out what I see to be a little irony in that you, guthrie are not realy any different than case 2.
Would still like an answer if you get time.
I think there is evidence to show short term implications but also there’s evidence back through fossils that show CO2 levels have been more than ten times the level they are at today.
What was the world like then?
From my point of view it’s the same approach from both the right wing nuts and the left wing nuts alike.
False equivalence. Those “left-wing nuts” are headed by 97% of the world’s actual climate research scientists. Are there people on that side of the aisle who are shrill and uninformed? Sure. Heck, I can probably find somebody out there who’s still skeptical about gravity. But there’s a difference between the rule and the exception. We ignore idiots, regardless of what they believe, and concentrate on what the science has to say.
What was the world like then?
Warmer, most definitely, and your chances of being eaten by something bigger than you was significantly increased, but atmospheric pressure played a large part as well, which is why I mentioned it. I think there are far more factors than man-made carbon dioxide emissions alone that contribute to climate change and even then the recorded averages are not out of proportion with the lows recorded this time a century ago in correlation to the mean global temperature since the 1800’s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weather_records#Temperature – There are record lows all over the world in the last five years as well as record highs. Yes, there are more highs than lows but it is misleading to only highlight the highs whe lows are appearing, too. Fact remains the difference of temperature over a hundred years is less than 1.2 degrees celcius from highest high to lowest low. Over the course of Earth’s warming and cooling cycle which lasts anywhere between 50,000-150,000 years that’s nothing, and that remains my point. How do we know that we are cause of the current warming trend when temperatures, even in the minutely short term, are within the scope of the mean?
Now I have now doubt in my mind that we are contributing to global warmth… the world’s population has increased from about 4.2 billion to 6.9billion in my short lifespan… that’s a lot more idiots just like me doing humdrum things day in day out at 98.6c alone. Factor in our need for warmth at night and just central heating in an evening could contribute. So yes, I’m in agreement that it’s getting warmer, but in the 1970’s it was getting colder. Where’s the unrefutable proof that my favourite blight on the planet is the root cause of the 0.5c increase of mean teperature over the last 35 years?
Right and left wing nuts – I believe they exist in equal proportion and are equally capable of earning my sarcasm. Mainly for wholly different but equally amusing reasons!
1: I don’t think there’s any question that the planet could sustain significantly higher levels of CO2 and heat. The question is what would this mean for humans. I’ve seen a variety of conjectures, but none of the credible ones paint a picture of a world I look forward to living in.
2: You keep talking about warmth. Note: here at S&R we rarely talking about warming. We talk about climate disruption, which is more accurate. The dislocations that anthropogenic effects engender may be significant irrespective of temperature increases. Remember the Butterfly Effect. Small changes can create huge effects and in complex systems these outcomes are not always predictable.
3: You may believe that idiots exist in equal measure on all sides if you like, but with respect to this conversation I’d certainly love to see you demonstrate it.
Also, if you haven’t found it yet, the thread over here is probably more what you’re interested in, being as it is directly concerned with climate as opposed to the tangential conversation about the sorry state of American education.
You have no idea how much I love being intellectually challenged again… it’s been too long, mate.
1. I used warming because it’s in the OP – Case 2: In a climate-related thread on S&R, a “skeptic” was asked point-blank: “What evidence would you accept that global warming is real?
Applying this to myself I asked the question to myself and what I asked is what I would need in relation to warming being a escalation of temperature caused by our actions as a whole. I didn’t get an answer
If I looked at that question literally I would just look at any one of the hundreds of global temperature diagrams and say – “Hey look! The last few years have been warmer. Case closed!”
2. I was staying on topic. (see 1.). reading that article now.
3. I asked a question the first answer was dogma just like from the right. There was no actual attempt to approach my question in a way that would lead me to one or many citations I could read and garner and informed opinion of. You inferred Markus and the topic of case 2 were idiots. I can see the same side of the coin in Guthrie’s answer… even though I would not go so far as to call Guthrie an idiot – the information was correct even if it distracted from my question. The conclusion is no different in my eyes.
But I still believe left and right nut just live in equilibrium. It’s the way the bell curve works. The far right of the curve has waved a big flag… just like the far right is prone to do. Maybe the far left is more smart about it. 😉
And I would not focus solely on the sorry state of American education… I think education is in a sorry state on a world wide scale.
1. I used warming because it’s in the OP – Case 2: In a climate-related thread on S&R, a “skeptic” was asked point-blank: “What evidence would you accept that global warming is real?
Right. Others do that, and warming is a valid issue. We just feel like that bogs a broader concern down at times.
If I looked at that question literally I would just look at any one of the hundreds of global temperature diagrams and say – “Hey look! The last few years have been warmer. Case closed!”
Yeah, but you can’t over-infer from just five years. Climate is biggest picture, longest term.
You inferred Markus and the topic of case 2 were idiots. I can see the same side of the coin in Guthrie’s answer… even though I would not go so far as to call Guthrie an idiot – the information was correct even if it distracted from my question. The conclusion is no different in my eyes.
No, no – go back and look specifically at what Markus did. He was asked what evidence would prove it and his answer was that no evidence would prove it. He inadvertently revealed himself as a pure dogmatic, which is true of all denialists. As I explain in my article, all data is interpreted in light of the pre-given conclusion.
But I still believe left and right nut just live in equilibrium. It’s the way the bell curve works. The far right of the curve has waved a big flag… just like the far right is prone to do. Maybe the far left is more smart about it.
This is imposing a statistical picture on facts in ways that ignore meaning. Take the most liberal nation in the world and the most conservative. By your reasoning there’s a Bell curve that describes the left/right continuum in each. Okay, maybe. So that is intended to suggest equivalence. Except that if you map them together you might find that the means are two sigmas apart. So there’s nothing really equivalent at all.
The question is, if I score intelligence against ideological leanings on a particular subject, do I discover that the smarter you are, the more likely you are to believe A instead of B. In any number of cases, this appears to be the fact of things.
Messed 1 and 2 up plenty, Sam… kid has marzipan in her hair and I don’t whether to clean her or eat her.
In response to 1 –
I started in on the whole global climate thing in school and if they were dead right half of the south of England, London included would be under water. Not only did that not happen, but I think that we, as a species, are just about as cantankerous as cockroaches. We’ll find a way to survive in comfort and f&%! things up more on a progressive scale.
!Never too proud to retract. i read and re-read an I fully admit mis-reading you at first look, mate. Just the one idiot on board. That’s not to say i don’t firmly believe that there’s an equilibrium… even in the most liberal and conservative countries the voting is never all one sided and those with the strongest opinions are, more often than not, going to be on the extreme sides.
It’s just human nature to find just as many on the left as there are on the right… though granted the right are far more vocal about it in regards to media, especially on the radio in the States.
If I might find that the means are two sigmas are apart then I could equally find that they might equate just as often. That becomes a matter of substantiation, not speculation.
I would like to see some examples of intelligence versus ideology and subject. I think the subjects that show obvious disparity would be artistic avenues, technical ventures and business acumen, though the technical and business sides probably lend themselves to working hand in hand.
…those with the strongest opinions are, more often than not, going to be on the extreme sides.
Strongest opinion isn’t really a concern to me. Most informed is the issue. It is possible to be passionately convinced of either right or wrong opinions, and it is possible to be right or wrong and lukewarm.
It’s just human nature to find just as many on the left as there are on the right… though granted the right are far more vocal about it in regards to media, especially on the radio in the States.
Finding equal numbers on the left and right is a function of where we draw the center line, and that’s artificial. To say that 50% are left of center is always true, isn’t it? In the US, there are as many people to the right of center now as there were in 1970. The problem is that the center is significantly further to the right than it was in 1970. Barack Obama is demonstrably more conservative than was Richard Nixon.
The center changes with the times, as does ideology. For me, comparing Nixon and Obama is like judging Ian Flemming’s Live and Let Die’s commentary on African Americans with today’s standard of ethics. It’s something I am loathe to do.
Be that as it may:
http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2008/06/24/a-progressive-for-our-times
http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2011/07/29/what-america-needs-now-is-tricky-dick-nixon-no-im-not-joking/
Great, I just pressed the wrong button and lost my reply to the Englishman.
Now, I havn’t seen such a carefully dismissive reply for a while.
Firstly, your post lacked context to indicate whether or not you understood green house gases or not, given that I have known many people online who asked similar questions and showed no knowledge of greenhouse gases and isotope ratios etc which indicate they are from fossil fuels.
Now, from the link you handily supplied:
“Humid forests could be seen not only at the equators, but also spreading from mid-latitudes to the poles. Deciduous forests could be seen at high latitudes, tropical forests at mid latitudes and Savanna and deserts at low latitudes. The oceans were becoming warm and often anoxic.”
Can you not see that an anoxic ocean would be a bit of a problem when it comes to fishing? Moreover we have oceanic acidification today which is also going to cause some problems.
And in the long run we are all dead, even Homo Sapiens. Sea level rise, you see to have not paid attention in school, since nobody was predicting London would be underwater by now. There are similar problems with the claim of global cooling in the 70’s – the scientists were talking about well into the future and by the time the media got hold of it and one or two idiots talked it up people thought they meant the near future ice age was at hand. Full details about how it wasn’t a scientific consensus here:
Click to access Myth-1970-Global-Cooling-BAMS-2008.pdf
Finally, Dr Carl Baugh is a creationist nutter, and therefore no use in any scientific argument unless in an area in which he has actually published in respected journals. Apparently he is a YEC, therefore to him the Jurassic was not so long before the flood, i.e. about 4 or 5 thousand years ago.
As for falsification, I know what would falsify my views. A rising stratsophere, oceans becoming more alkaline, cooling over a significant period i.e. 20 to 30 years (without external forces like lower solar output, a big mirror in space, volcanic eruption or the magicking away of 1/4 the CO2 in the atmosphere today)
And my reply was lost also –
Long and short it is this – Say what you want about my attention span. You weren’t in my classroom talking about the local conditions of the Thames estuary and it’s inherent dangers for temporary and permanent flooding in 1988, and I’ll kindly ask that in future you think before you type on that front.
I honestly can’t be arsed to re-write the rest, though I assure it was informed, with links and yes I also drew some personal conclusions here and there about temperature trends for the last 800,000 years, but mainly I haven’t gone back over the points because I have no doubt you’d only have pooh poohed or ridiculed it, probably both, and I still won’t get an answer to my original question, just more picking at my most recent post.
Anyone up for a beer?
I can’t speak for others, but there’s no telling what I’ve missed these past few days. Absolutely fucking stomped by work. So if I dropped a ball, my apologies.
Well Markus, still waiting for your answer to my question # 17.
I will say that I don’t agree with # 19. I think you are fully smart enough to understand the question, and related question. You are just avoiding answering directly because you know emotionally that the only logical answers put you on the weak side of the argument.
The thing with argumentation, as noted by Wufnik at the start of this article, is that people who are truly interested in truth and learning are willing to lose an argument – if that means that something new is learned.
So, please join us over here. We have nachos.
Did you mean #20, Jim?
If so I’ll tell you this: I’m the first to admit when I foul up and the last one out the door to correct the error. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong. Simple as that.
I will re-phrase the question to make it easier to answer:
Is it misleading, or even vain, to say that we the cause of warming trends when the history of warming trends has been on the increase for approximately 20,000 years?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EPICA_temperature_plot.svg (easy to read scale)
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/ (yep, we’re pumping way too much CO2 into the atmosphere)
http://ametsoc.org/POLICY/2007climatechange.html (The least biased statement I have been able to find)
No, I meant number # 19. I agree and it makes sense to me that the Earth is getting warmer, and that human activity is the reason why.
Original question? I’ve forgotten what yours was.
Lets take your newer simpler version:
“Is it misleading, or even vain, to say that we the cause of warming trends when the history of warming trends has been on the increase for approximately 20,000 years?”
The answer is no, as I explained before. We have lots of evidence to demonstrate what, why and how the earth is warming just now. If you want any more evidence, discussion of what you don’t understand etc etc, just ask, but if you ask that question again it’ll indicate lots of things, some of which you might also have heard of at school.