quote:

The same line is used by Creationists to argue that Creationism ought to be taught in schools to "enable children to debate the issue". Both your use and theirs is of course a classic strawman. The scientific debate goes on. What is unhealthy is for scientists to have to waste their time debating deniers rather than science.

This is nonsense.....and the usual AGW advocate use of no end of logical fallacies, in particular the red herring.....and is a straw man argument in itself !

The other major logical fallacy is that of burden of proof. If a claim is made, then it is the duty of those making it to prove that it is true, not of those refuting it to prove it isn't.

Science is about evidence.....not about stupid concepts like believers and 'deniers'. It is perfectly reasonable, rational, normal, and scientific to refuse to accept evidence that one does not consider good enough.

Steve-M,

1. Models are a time evolution so can't just be compared to current observations if they are to have a credible basis.

4. I thought Lindzen was still banging away at this.

7. Group think is bigger than one-on-one and is 2 way. All in a group are influenced and it can affect not just behaviours and opinions but say who/what receives preferential funding..

I maintain I believe that validity of modelling is key to the debate else like the ancients we'd be superstitious of any observed stimulus as the cause of an effect. The obvious isn't always the root cause. If it were why do scientist test hypotheses when they're obvious?

quote:

Originally posted by Chi Squared:

quote:

The same line is used by Creationists to argue that Creationism ought to be taught in schools to "enable children to debate the issue". Both your use and theirs is of course a classic strawman. The scientific debate goes on. What is unhealthy is for scientists to have to waste their time debating deniers rather than science.

This is nonsense.....and the usual AGW advocate use of no end of logical fallacies, in particular the red herring.....and is a straw man argument in itself !

You are mistaken. There is no red herring nor strawman in what I state. Your denial of the science and the Creationist's denial of the science are equivalent.

quote:

The other major logical fallacy is that of burden of proof. If a claim is made, then it is the duty of those making it to prove that it is true, not of those refuting it to prove it isn't.

Science doesn't deal with proof; it deals with evidence. If you want proof, go argue whisky; not science.

quote:

Science is about evidence.....not about stupid concepts like believers and 'deniers'. It is perfectly reasonable, rational, normal, and scientific to refuse to accept evidence that one does not consider good enough.

Not is is inane in the extreme to refuse to accept evidence that one does not consider good enough. Scientific evidence is objective; it isn't up to you to pick and choose the bits you like the look of and to reject those you don't like.

quote:

1. Models are a time evolution so can't just be compared to current observations if they are to have a credible basis.

What I mean is that for a model to be "successful" then it has to represent in detail the effects of current warming when the effects of current forcings are added (such as warmer troposphere, colder stratosphere...)

They are used to reproduce previous climates (20th C climate is a good candidate because of the reasonable amount of observations).

And they are used to predict future climates. Obviously, we've not had much of a future, but the models in the 1980s did a very good job of predicting the current global temperature.

More and more they are being used for seasonal/annual forecasts, though these are not very detailed. eg. the Met Office have predicted a 60% chance of this year being warmer than the 1998 record (which was due to a strong El Nino releasing ocean heat)

MindCrime

quote:

So you support the current political orthodoxy? This sounds exactly like what all the western leaders are talking about.

Given the hypothetical position you stated then yes but I've not been convinced that we're in your hypothetical position.

I also would not panic too much given there are short term aerosol solutions if necessary. I suspect that China/India/ + Indonesian fires etc will be putting enough particles into the atmosphere to reduce warming short term (if it exists) to medium term while other technologies are prepared to be rolled out as necessary, hence nuclear should figure big (but managed properly and safely).

I do actually believe we're (the planet) unbalanced in our fuel usage with over reliance on oil and gas. That will even out as we move forward as long as there is fair cost benefit comparison with alternatives considering their whole lifecycle costs and benefits mainly because I believe oil will become more expensive and economy of scale for others will improve their position.

quote:

Originally posted by Son of Mulder:
Given the hypothetical position you stated then yes but I've not been convinced that we're in your hypothetical position.

You don't believe that AGW is our best guess? How do you think we should come up with a best guess other than an IPCC-like process?

quote:

I also would not panic too much given there are short term aerosol solutions if necessary.

I think that's a bit unlikely. The Aerosol sources you suggest are also large sources of CO2, so once the aerosol is gone (a few months to a few years) you're left with a lot more CO2.

Also, aerosol effects are very localised. Significant warming in some areas and cooling in others would lead to disruption in weather patterns. I don't know if this is plausible but Aerosols from Indonesia causing cooling near the equator and CO2 causing warming in central asia could disrupt the Hadley cell - maybe disrupt the monsoon. That could be even worse than the GW on its own.

Steve_M

quote:

More and more they are being used for seasonal/annual forecasts, though these are not very detailed. eg. the Met Office have predicted a 60% chance of this year being warmer than the 1998 record (which was due to a strong El Nino releasing ocean heat)

So are you saying it's hot because the pacific ocean is cooling?

I think there is a definite case of discrimination of pollutants from developing economies going on here denying them a chance to cool the world.

1940-1980 global cooling from sulphate aerosols from developed nation pollutants and nobody accuses them of releasing CO2 as well?

But when it comes to the turn of developing nations all sorts of questions are asked - is it going to be local? will they not emit CO2 as well?

If we don't the answer it is best to hide behind technical jargon of uncertainty of negative feedback rather than displaying ignorance

Mindcrime

quote:

You don't believe that AGW is our best guess?

No I'm sceptical that we're in for some serious heating. But as I've indicated in my diatribe about Modelling I could be convinced by the right evidence concerning the validity of the modelling.

quote:

So are you saying it's hot because the pacific ocean is cooling?

Oops everyone is very sharp this afternoon

The "headline" measure of temperatures is the near surface temperature measure, so it is influenced in the short term by a phenomenon such as El Nino (ENSO). There are measures of ocean temperature too and they are going up as well, so you can't attribute the warming to slow release from the oceans.

quote:

Originally posted by What's in your mind:
I think there is a definite case of discrimination of pollutants from developing economies going on here denying them a chance to cool the world. {/QUOTE]
I have to admit, I don't know why the 1940-80 aerosols caused global cooling rather than localised cooling. Perhaps I am wrong about their effects.

[QUOTE]nobody accuses them of releasing CO2 as well?

I thought that was exactly what we were doing. Isn't that CO2 what this is all about?

quote:

to hide behind technical jargon

Is that directed at me? I'm happy to explain my understanding of anything I've said.

quote:

Originally posted by Son of Mulder:
I could be convinced by the right evidence concerning the validity of the modelling.

but by then it will be too late . . .

There are measures of ocean temperature too and they are going up as well, so you can't attribute the warming to slow release from the oceans.

Another fact that needs updating. The sea surface temperatures were recorded as increasing up to 2003, but more recent data show that in the 2003-2005 period 40% of this extra heat energy was lost.

As an aside, the El Nino phase ended about the end of January, and there are signs of a developing La Nina. There is usually a lag between ocean current changes and global temperature changes of a few months, so the Met Office may have to revise down their projections for this year, which were based on a longer and stronger El Nino, as the later part of the year may be a bit cool.

quote:

The Aerosol sources you suggest are also large sources of CO2, so once the aerosol is gone (a few months to a few years) you're left with a lot more CO2.

So what? More burning = more aeorosols and any shortage of aerosols (sulphates) can be spread from jets without significant CO2 production.

But continue to grow nuclear and other alternatives with an urgency dependant on what feedbacks are seen in the environment. All this doesn't happen in 5 minutes or 5 years.

quote:

So what? More burning = more aeorosols and any shortage of aerosols (sulphates) can be spread from jets without significant CO2 production.

Unfortunately jets produce lots of CO2 as well as nitrates which increase tropospheric ozone which is also a greenhouse gas.

quote:

Originally posted by Son of Mulder:
grow nuclear

Does anyone know what estimated global reserves of Uranium are? I suspect that there is no way we have enough to supply the world.

quote:

Originally posted by MindCrime:

quote:

Originally posted by Arcana69:
My tutor at Medical College said that there were only 2 known facts....

1. You are born.

2. You die.

.... all others are open to debate and discovery.

Are you suggesting that one plus one may not equal two?

Are you suggesting that massive objects don't fall because of mutual attraction with the Earth?

Are you suggesting that light in a vacuum does not travel at a constant speed?

Do you live your life worrying that the sun may not come up tomorrow?

My paragraph states quite categorically that the tutors comments were about Medical Science so why change it? lt's sad that you use this approach quantify your beliefs.


".... all others are open to debate and discovery. He was referring to the medical field but it applies nonetheless to others."

quote:

You are mistaken. There is no red herring nor strawman in what I state. Your denial of the science and the Creationist's denial of the science are equivalent.

Rubbish. It is the very EPITOME of a straw man argument. Substitute what a person is actually saying with some completely different argument and then reason that because you can defeat the latter you have somehow defeated the former. That is the entire definition of 'straw man'.

quote:

Not is is inane in the extreme to refuse to accept evidence that one does not consider good enough. Scientific evidence is objective; it isn't up to you to pick and choose the bits you like the look of and to reject those you don't like.

This is yet more rubbish. Yet more logical fallacy.....this time a mixture of the 'appeal to authority', the 'appeal to belief'....and a bit of 'special pleading' thrown in.

Scientific evidence is NOT 'objective' when even the people presenting it state that they have a 90% confidence level. Last I heard, 2 + 2 = 4, which is a genuine objective fact, was not expressed with a 90% confidence level.

I bet you would not play Russian roulette with a gun with 10 chambers and one bullet and state it as an 'objective fact' that you would not get shot !

Steve_M

quote:

Unfortunately jets produce lots of CO2 as well as nitrates which increase tropospheric ozone which is also a greenhouse gas

So are we getting rid of jets completely. I think not they can carry passengers at the same time.

MindCrime

quote:

Does anyone know what estimated global reserves of Uranium are? I suspect that there is no way we have enough to supply the world.

As I mentioned earlier the oil was going to run out in the 70's. I bet you like the oil industry finding oil, uranium miners will have a canny knack of finding more and more.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve_M:

quote:

1. Models are a time evolution so can't just be compared to current observations if they are to have a credible basis.

What I mean is that for a model to be "successful" then it has to represent in detail the effects of current warming when the effects of current forcings are added (such as warmer troposphere, colder stratosphere...)

They are used to reproduce previous climates (20th C climate is a good candidate because of the reasonable amount of observations).

And they are used to predict future climates. Obviously, we've not had much of a future, but the models in the 1980s did a very good job of predicting the current global temperature.

Really? I suppose it depends on your definition of a "very good job". Given the huge number of models that exist, I suppose some were bound to get the right answer!

quote:

Originally posted by Son of Mulder:
Steve_M

quote:

Unfortunately jets produce lots of CO2 as well as nitrates which increase tropospheric ozone which is also a greenhouse gas

So are we getting rid of jets completely. I think not they can carry passengers at the same time.

Interesting, isn't it, that the middle class organisations such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth are only now interested in getting plane flights minimised. When it was only nice middle class people who went on foreign holidays, then it wasn't a problem. But now that the oiks can do it as well......