| rose colored glasses? |
| ||
(1) They only have about 1000 years of data, so the best we can conclude is that the 30 year average value has not exceeded some limit in the last ~ 1000 years. Which doesn't tell us very much. (2) Yes, very simplistic view of a very complex system. Again, exactly my point. |
| Citizen Runner |
| ||
|
I'm not sure what you're looking for here. There is no magic piece of data that by itself will convince you or anyone else beyond any doubt that AGW is fact. It is a theory consistent with available data, which has suggested additional lines of investigation that thus far have corroborated the theory, and for which there is no obvious contradictory evidence. That is essentially the definition of a good theory. There isn't much point in laying out endless detail when that's already been done by sources you dismiss, without further justification, beyond your unsupported belief of their bias. There is no point in delving into complex details when you persist in simplistic dismissals. |
| XY |
| ||
|
We set a record high here in NY today. Proof we need to recycle |
| Roses, from the phone |
| ||
|
What I'm "looking for" here is the possibility of some intelligent input from somebody who has convinced them self, through careful study, of the validity if AGW. I'm not sure what you're expecting from me, but I'll guarantee you won't convince me of the hypothesis in a few days. I'll need at least a year, probably more like five years, to convince myself one way or another. There has been some good information shared in this thread. I have learned a few things. Atmospheric CO2 levels are in the mud to upper 300s and seem to be rising. I don't know what particular significance this has but intend to continue to follow several leads. Based on a small number of "random" locations with about 100 years of good weather data, temperatures appear to be rising. Something like maybe 1 degree per century, I think. I don't really know whether this is significant, or within the realm if natural variability, or if there's a link with CO2 levels (although none is obvious). Separate from this thread I've been conversing with a highly regarded scientist who spoke recently about sea level rise. He is in your camp, convinced about AGW. I asked him how they measure mean sea level (this is nowhere as simple as one might think) as he had just spoken on the topic and he admitted to me he wasn't actually sure. Does this mean he was wrong? I don't think so, but I need to read more deeply into the topic. If you gave some other compelling evidence, apart from the big blue graph of CO2 levels, don't be shy to share it |
| Hold the phone would you |
| ||
|
An intelligent skeptic would not look to these message boards for intelligent input on this topic. Assuming that you do not have infinite time, how you choose to use whatever time you have for study on this topic would best be spent elsewhere. Google the topic, read the papers, drill down to original work... Time spent here is a waste of time for someone trying to understand the phenomena called AGW. Anyone of any intelligence would recognize this obvious fact. Given that you are undoubtedly intelligent, (something that cannot be said of many on these boards), the logical conclusion is that you are not, in fact, here to get "some intelligent input from somebody who has convinced them self, through careful study, of the validity if AGW." One might ask what exactly you are doing here. However, any reasonably intelligent mind can see what is obvious. Of course, it is not the intelligent that you are paid to try to influence is it? You have done your work reasonably well. Naturally you could improve upon your deception but it is not clear that the time and effort thus spent would truly be worth the marginal costs associated with thus improving your act. You might also work on keeping more than one other person involved in the discussion, though this is easier said than done. So, I must say, regarding your overall performance, "Bravo, my dear lad". A job well done. |
| Citizen Runner |
| ||
|
What I don't get is why you don't just go to the IPCC report, which is essentially a compilation of the evidence, instead of looking for some anonymous person(s) on a running messageboard to feed you the very same evidence piecemeal, and apparently over the course of years. The peer reviewed scientific papers behind the report are referenced, so you can poke at details to your hearts content. To do otherwise seems like a horribly inefficient way to go about it and not a particularly effective use of this anonymous person's time. |
| gis |
| ||
|
I'm glad this thread is still going. I wanted to start a good conversation, and I'm pleased that you all have been discussing this issue. Keep it up. For those that care, I am respectful of many different views on this topic. I may not agree, but I try my best to be respectful. |
| Roses, from the phone |
| ||
|
You think I'm being paid to sit on the fence? That's amusing. At the moment I'm paid by nobody as I'm on an unpaid leave hammering out some personal research efforts (in my field, not related to climate - I still admit to being a climate dumba$$) If you drop an email I'll contact you so you can google me and see for yourself that I have no affiliation with any anti-AGW lobby or industry. In fact, next week a group of people in my company are giving an internal global warming talk, presenting no doubt many of the same arguments that have been made here. |
| Roses, from the phone |
| ||
|
In due course I am certain I will get to the IPCC report, but as noted earlier I have a process that involves avoidance of summary compilations, at least at first. In. The 12+ years I've been coming here, I've been amazed by the useful information I've been able to get from anonymous posters. I think if you read carefully you can sift through the noise and come up with plenty of good insight. One of the reasons I like to discuss this with people is to gauge how much of their opinion is based on blind belief as compared witha deep rational analysis of available information. If the hypothesis is valid and easy to defend, somebody should've able to make a clear, unshakeable case for it. As noted earlier I can't really discuss this with friends or colleagues without generating confrontation. Everyone had a strong opinion one way or the other. Being a fence sitter makes me an enemy to everyone :-) |
| Citizen Runner |
| ||
So this is about judging people not about judging the validity of the theory? Perhaps that would explain your reluctance to go directly to expert summary compilations.
I think we've established that climate science is not "easy", but isn't a "clear, unshakeable case" precisely a "summary compilation"?
Maybe you're just not that likeable? |
| Roses, from the phone |
| ||
|
Judging people? Really? Wouldn't I need to know the "people" to judge them? What I'm trying to judge us the strength of opinions defended by anonymous posters. Yours seems to be something to the effect of "the IPCC report says it is so, ergo it must be so." in the end, you may well be correct, but my intention is to continue to probe the arguments to see whether they hold water or are a house of cards. |
| somali pirate |
| ||
|
Recycling does not affect anything. GW is the biggest farce in the history of this planet |
| Roses, from the phone |
| ||
|
One more point... You can tell that somebody understands something completely when they are capable of explaining it clearly and succinctly in laymans terms. Judging the discussion so far on that basis, nobody in this thread (present company included) actually understands climate change. Which is really the main point at the guts of my position. |
| Stupidity Alert |
| ||
Hilarious. If you want to interact with people who "understand something completely" you go talk with the experts in the field. Pretty sure that on this particular topic you would be more likely to encounter such folks by tracking down leading climatologists than by "trolling" a running message board. "Judging the discussion so far on that basis, nobody in this thread (present company included) actually understands climate change. Which is really the main point at the guts of my position" Even more hilarious. The "main point at the guts of (your) position" is that nobody on these boards understands the science of climate change completely? That is, nobody on here is a climatologist who has dedicated much of their professional life to the subject? Really? Gee, what other late breaking news do have for us, Einstein? Good lord, who pays you for this stuff. Do they even review your "work"? |
| wert234w |
| ||
|
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/17/forget-the-money-follow-the-sacredness/ insight into the motives of flat earth society types. |
| Roses, from the phone |
| ||
|
I didn't say anywhere that nobody on the board understands climate, did I? I said nobody in this thread, as nobody has been able to put forth a clear, concise argument. Why do you insist on accusing me of being paid to voice my opinion and scrutinize others? I'm pretty sure I've maintained a fairly even tine, and not insulted anyone (except indirectly, as some people interpret having their opinion questioned as an insult to them personally, and I mean no insult to anybody) |
| rose colored glasses? |
| ||
As I noted earlier, I have corresponded with a respected scientist on the topic of sea level rise. As I hold him in very high regard, I will weigh his opinions fairly heavily, but as noted he admitted ignorance on the nature of measurements, so I think there is some room for probing. Part of my inquiry is an examination of the social side of this discussion. I'm interested to know why the average person forms an opinion one way or another. In my observation, everyone forms opinions (at least partly) based on an emotional, rather than strictly rational, analysis of available information. Hence, this discussion provokes plenty of emotion. And relatively less compelling argument. |
| rose colored glasses? |
| ||
|
Sorry, I meant to respond to this: Yes of course it would be. But the reverse isn't necessarily true. I'm not suggesting the IPCC report isn't. Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't. You know I haven't read it, nor do I intend to until I've poked around the fringes some more. And hence, people can happily dismiss my "opinion" as uninformed, which I continue to admit to be the case. |
| Citizen Runner |
| ||
You misjudge the basis for my opinion, but why should my opinion or the strength of it matter to you? It isn't so much that the IPCC is necessarily the fountain of all knowledge, so much as ignoring their reports on this topic demonstrates a level of willful ignorance that is inconsistent with You've stated multiple times in this thread that your inclination is, essentially, that climate is too complex to isolate specific cause and effect. Hence you would reject a simple layman's explaination such as: "Atmospheric greenhouse gases are increasing which is causing global average surface temperatures to rise. Multiple lines of evidence indicate that the rise in greenhouse gases is due in large part to human activity." What you seem to be asking for is some justification for the belief that climate is not too complex to isolate specific cause and effect with reasonable accuracy. To that end I would point out that the various climate models have successfully "hindcasted" general trends in climate including perturbations from large scale natural events (i.e. volcanos) and have had reasonable success in forecasting general trends. If you can get past your phobia of biasing influences and my unacceptable level of conciseness there are details of model validation and 600+ literature references here: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf. As an aside, when and if you bother to read the technical IPCC stuff I expect you'll be surprised how readily they point out uncertainties, levels of confidence, and shortcomings in the data. |
| Citizen Runner |
| ||
|
. . . inconsistent with an honest effort to evaluate the theory. |