DIYbanter - View Single Post - Global Warming

D Smith

(Doug Miller) writes:

In article , D Smith wrote:
(Doug Miller) writes:

In article , D Smith
wrote:
(Doug Miller) writes:

In article , D Smith
wrote:

I am going to repeat some questions orignally posted a few weeks ago by
Bob Grumbine in another group. (He hosts the web site I referred to in
another post.) Please tell me which of the following points you disagree
with:

There is a greenhouse effect

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas

Atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased over
the past 150 years

The source of that increase is human activity

Half credit on that one. The source of *part* of that increase is human
activity. Asserting that *all* of it is, is an article of faith, not
science.

Pleased tell me what "part" you accept as being from human activity.
1%? 10%? 50%, 90%? 99%?

Second request, leaving lots of white space so it doesn't get missed.

Pleased tell me what "part" you accept as being from human activity.
1%? 10%? 50%, 90%? 99%?

I ignored that, because -- as I'm sure you know -- it's an irrelevant
strawman. You assert that global warming is entirely the result of human
activity; it's up to you to demonstrate the truth of that assertion.

First of all, read over the text above, and note that the question is
about the source of the observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
it says NOTHING about global warming or temperature changes. That is a
seperate and distinct component of the overall issue, and is not
addressed in that statement.

The entire sequence of statements does carry the implication that
humans are burning fossil fuels which will have a warming effect, but that
single statement, taken only with the previous statement about atmospheric
CO2 concentration, says nothing at all about ANY sort of climate response.

So, your claim that I am asserting that "global warming is entirely the
result of human activity" does not follow from that single statement.

In your first response, you said "The source of *part* of that increase
is human activity." I wanted to know what you meant by "part", and you are
completely unwilling to answer. If you said "90%", I would think that we
really don't disagree much and it's not an issue. If you said "10%", I'd
think we'd disagree a lot and it would be worth trying to figure out why
we disagree.

Now, presuming that you think the statement deals with "global
warming", I can understand your reaction, but the statement addresses
nothing more than the source of the atmospheric increase in CO2.

Are you willing to answer the question on that basis?

When I orignally posted the sequence of questions, I asked for an
indication of which points you disagreed with, and the scientific basis
for that disagreement.

One goal was to find out which points we agree on (if any), so that we
wouldn't waste time on them - clearly define the common ground, so to
speak.

The followup to that would be to discuss the areas of disagreement, to
see if we can deterime *why* we disagree - be different interpretations of
the same data, different data, etc.

This is how scientists normally try to resolve differences.

Elementary physics shows that if concentration of greenhouse gases
increases, climate warms

*** That one, right there. ***

The causes of climate change are, at best, imperfectly understood, and to
argue that a *single* factor is "the" causative agent is to leave the realm
of
science and enter that of speculation.

Read over the question again. Where do you get the idea that it says
that increasing greenhouse gases are the ONLY factor involved in climate?

That's implicit in the phrasing of the claim: "if concentration of greenhouse
gases increases, climate warms" completely ignores any other factors that
might act to cause the climate to cool.

You wish to interpret the question that way.

First off, it's not a "question", it's an *assertion*.

Second, it's not a matter of how I "wish to interpret" it; to anyone with an
ordinary ability to read and comprehend written English -- and withOUT an a
priori political agenda to push -- the meaning is quite clear. If you choose
to interpret it to mean something other than what it plainly does, it's your
responsibility, not mine, to explain why.

Once again. How can I try to explain my view of any of those points,
if I do not know your position on those points, or even how much you know
about certain things, whether you take a position on them or not?

I do not want to waste time giving lengthy explanations of things we
agree on.

I want to find out where and why we disagree, to focus the discussion.
You seem to have concluded that everything is "a political agenda", and
this is making it extremely difficult to have any sort of a scientific
disucssion.

For the purposes of determining the effect of "greenhouse gases", is it
not traditional to try to isolate that component of the system? Isn't that
the way science works? Isolate a component, figure out its effect, then
build it back into the composite system?

Not relevant. Again, let me remind you that the phrasing of the assertion
clearly implies the a priori assumption that there are no other relevant
factors.

For the purpose of isolating the effect of that one component, in order
to be able to quantify it, is that not appropriate?

To try to inject at least a modicum of woodworking into this, when you
decide what joinery method to use, you need to know the type of material,
the type of joint, the type of glue (if any) and the type of fasteners (if
any) to determine the total strength. But if you want to test glue
strength and compare three different glues, you don't test glue 1 on
dovetails in oak, glue 2 on a butt joint in pine, and glue 3 on a biscuit
joint in plywood, do you?

The question is whether or not you agree that greenhouse gas
concentrations are ONE factor that affects climate (i.e., the response is
non-zero), and whether or not you agree that the effect is to increase
temperature when greenhouse gases go up (i.e., the slope of the
relationship is positive).

In an obvious exaggeration for the sake
of making the point, suppose that solar output were to diminish by fifty
percent at the same time that atmospheric CO2 levels were rising. Would you
still argue that "if concentration of greenhouse gases increases, climate
warms"?

I would argue that the increase in greenhouse gases will cause warming
that will offset some of the cooling caused by reduced solar insolation.

Do you *really* believe that increased greenhouse gases could offset a 50%
decrease in solar output?

Which part of "some" is so difficult for you to understand?

OK, let me rephrase that, since you seem to be having difficulty with it:

Do you *really* believe that increased greenhouse gases could offset a 50%
decrease in solar output to any extent which would be meaningful to life forms
on this planet?

Sheesh.

Why did you cut out the part where I answered your question?

If you seriously wanted to discuss any of this, you would have
responded to my answer, instead of cutting it and asking the same question
again, as if I hadn't answered.

What is your purpose in doing such a thing?

Or did you just miss it? Or did you just ignore it?

Look. I'm interested in trying to discuss this rationally.

No, you're not. You keep erecting straw men, and misconstruing my statements
so wildly that it can only be deliberate.

No, I am not miscontruing your statements. In fact, I've accepted that
the original form of my points of debate (questions, assertions, whatever
you want to call them) could be miscontrued, I've tried to re-phrase them
and clarify them, and you've decided that you still want to stick to the
original miscontrued version.

It's clear that you are one of the global warming True Believers. You've left
the realm of rationality long ago, and won't listen to anything that calls
your Faith into question.

Alas, I thought you might actually be interested in discussing some of
this. Thanks for convincing me otherwise.

I can't "listen to anything that calls [my] Faith into question" when
you aren't willing to say what it is that you disagree with.

Unless you want to try to get past labelling people, there probably
isn't much more to say.