Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Again, you ignore significance. If the contribution of man and the effect of that contribution within the system is insignificant, then claiming we are responsible is like saying that because you blew with the wind during a hurricane, that you are responsible for that home being blown over. The details are important, yet you ignore these to keep arguing a "big picture" because the details are inconvenient.
What should be evaluated is if our contribution is meaningful (ie, does our contribution make any difference?) and as I have already discussed, the contribution and the changes within climate are so small that we can not isolate it outside of natural variability.
The significance is there. You just choose to bog yourself down with semantics and ignore reality. For example, we know volcanoes can directly influence the climate by cooling it. And we know that we our putting out more emissions than volcanoes (human based emissions are increasing exponentially), so a simple thought experiment shows some significance. But hey, thinking isn't your thing, so go check out the scientific literature on how our actions can significantly alter the climate.
Quote:
As I have said previously, AGW is simply the fact that man contributes to warming, CAGW is that man contributes, its contribution is significant and climate extremes and weather events are due to mans contribution. You keep looking at the big picture for the sake of generalizing them to the same purpose.
No I understand the difference is that the "C" in CAGW means catastrophic, which implies a greater deal of danger. And you overly complicate things and get bogged down in semantics
Quote:
Like I said, we have one discussion on the plate here, stick with that, I am not going to chase after another discussion. One thing at a time.
Why? It is AGW related and there is other evidence besides your typical climate science. Nature knows the climate is changing and is responding.
The problem with those pictures is that they are not scientific, they are simply pictures. Trying to draw any conclusions from them is pointless. What next? Are you going to show me pictures of the water vapor stacks from a coal plant and go on about how terrible that pollution is? By the way, cause of pollution, severity, and the solutions to dealing with it vary from location to location. You can't take a one size fits all approach to the issue and mandate it across states. Each area that has a localized pollution problem must be tackled with the details of each locations occurrence.
The problem? I wasn't trying to make a science project, not sure why you are trying to make this some formal inquiry. Just showing you pictures of smog, do you not believe in smog too? Do you need to know it's significance? LOLZ
I said nothing about a "one size fits all" solution, you are just making stuff. Just pointing out how combating smog can also combat climate change. Lets try and stick to the topic here, you only look foolish when you try and appear to be smarter than you actually are when you make comments like these.
The significance is there. You just choose to bog yourself down with semantics and ignore reality. For example, we know volcanoes can directly influence the climate by cooling it. And we know that we our putting out more emissions than volcanoes (human based emissions are increasing exponentially), so a simple thought experiment shows some significance. But hey, thinking isn't your thing, so go check out the scientific literature on how our actions can significantly alter the climate.
No it isn't. that is the entire point of contention with the issue of this. You are attempting to imply significance when none has been established. There is debate on all sides of the issue concerning it. You are ignoring the details to garner support for your position, that is the problem here.
I think from now on, if you are going to make claims as you are, then you should provide detailed evidential support for those claims. Generalizing as you do is confusing the issue because you mistake "assumptions" and "loose interpretations" with fact. You keep wanting to ignore the details and go on about the "bigger picture", but the reason you do this is because the details conflict with your "bigger picture". So, please... start providing "detailed" support rather than generalizing everything as all you are doing is confusing the issue here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
No I understand the difference is that the "C" in CAGW means catastrophic, which implies a greater deal of danger. And you overly complicate things and get bogged down in semantics
Though your continued use shows you do not. C is not a measurement mechanism, it is an establishment of the effect of AGW. C denotes that AGW has a significant effect, that it is measurable and directly associated with the change of climate. This is not established, and yes... I get bogged down in the details because it is those details which "complicate" your generalization of the issue. You keep taking a lackadaisical approach to explaining scientific process and that is why you consistently make unfounded assumptions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
Why? It is AGW related and there is other evidence besides your typical climate science. Nature knows the climate is changing and is responding.
There is no point in going into further discussion when you have not validated your previous discussion. I know you would like to skip on, take the stand that somehow you are valid and that we can excuse the discrepancies in your claims to get on to the "bigger picture" you so like to speak of, but the problem is that if your premise is false, then so is everything that builds off your premise.
So, like I said, first establish your previous point, then... once that is settled, we can move on to another.
The problem? I wasn't trying to make a science project, not sure why you are trying to make this some formal inquiry. Just showing you pictures of smog, do you not believe in smog too? Do you need to know it's significance? LOLZ
I said nothing about a "one size fits all" solution, you are just making stuff. Just pointing out how combating smog can also combat climate change. Lets try and stick to the topic here, you only look foolish when you try and appear to be smarter than you actually are when you make comments like these.
The problem with using such as evidence is that you are not even sure as to what is actually going on in those pictures. You have not established what is smog, what is not, etc... The pictures also are not evidence of anything as the manner to which they are taken often can be manipulated to provide "effect" to a given position. The pictures are pointless to establishing any valid point.
I have seen numerous pictures where the person using them as a point manipulated the photo to "enhance" them to an effect. Also, I have seen photos that claim they are of something, but are not as such because they failed to research the occurrence to properly identify what it is they are actually seeing. I brought up the coal plants as an example where the large plumes of water vapor are often used to show pollution. Like I said, those pictures are meaningless.
As for if I believe in pollution, sure... I know it exists, but... each occurrence is locally significant and what causes things like you display are not always simple to the cause you imply. So, using pictures as you do is just an emotional plea to shock people visually.
Let us get back to the main point though.
You claim AGW establishes significance, this is not true. AGW simply means that man contributes C02 and C02 is a component in warming. AGW does not establish how much man contributes, how much C02 plays a part in the process and if it has any significant effects on climate. That is all debateable, that is the point of contention among scientists and it varies from position to position.
CAGW is the term which implies it is having a noticeable effect on climate. This has not even remotely been established. It is simply a hypothesis and one that has consistently failed observational verifications.
So, if you are willing to accept that, we can move on to something else, but if you are going to continue to confuse the issue, then it is a pointless venture. You have been shown to be wrong, there is no need for me to keep giving your argument credibility by entertaining its failed premise.
This isn't a scientific paper, it isn't a response to a scientific position, etc...
It is simply a point concerning the discussions of the topic concerning "significance" which dv1033 likes to say I am getting hung up on.
Quote:
Well, as (climate sceptical) Bishop Hill once asked on Twitter: "Isn't everyone in the 97 per cent? I am." When the question was repeated at the Bishop's website by Met Office's Richard Betts, almost all those present agreed that they were. I would have done too, depending, of course, on precisely how you interpret the "consensus position" that "humans are causing global warming."
Well of course they are. Even if it's only down to the Urban Heat Island effect or the methane from beef cattle, humans almost certainly have an influence on climate. But so what? It always astonishes me when I see climate alarmists – even nice, well-meaning ones like Richard Betts – get all excited about this, as if somehow it represents a sudden concession by sceptics to the cause of warmism. If the alarmists spent any time paying attention to Watts Up With That, Bishop Hill or any of the myriad other sceptical websites out there, they would realise that this is what we've always thought. Our beef with the alarmists is not over the issue "Do humans contribute to climate change?" It's over "Do humans significantly contribute to climate chnage?" "Is there any evidence that this climate change is catastrophic or unprecedented?" "Do we need to do anything about it?" "Can we do anything about it?" "And are we sure that the cures currently being proposed aren't worse than the problem they're supposed to solve?"
But see, here we go again: here I am getting bogged down in a tedious and irrelevant non-argument of the kind the Warmists are always setting up in order to distract lay readers from more pertinent issues: like the fact that wind farms are just crap; that the evidence for catastrophic man-made global warming just hasn't materialised; that the polar bears aren't endangered; and so on.
Emphasis is mine.
This is the issue. The constant confusion to hide the facts of the issue, confuse the positions, and dismiss the details to which the entire point of contention exists.
No it isn't. that is the entire point of contention with the issue of this. You are attempting to imply significance when none has been established. There is debate on all sides of the issue concerning it. You are ignoring the details to garner support for your position, that is the problem here.
I think from now on, if you are going to make claims as you are, then you should provide detailed evidential support for those claims. Generalizing as you do is confusing the issue because you mistake "assumptions" and "loose interpretations" with fact. You keep wanting to ignore the details and go on about the "bigger picture", but the reason you do this is because the details conflict with your "bigger picture". So, please... start providing "detailed" support rather than generalizing everything as all you are doing is confusing the issue here.
Though your continued use shows you do not. C is not a measurement mechanism, it is an establishment of the effect of AGW. C denotes that AGW has a significant effect, that it is measurable and directly associated with the change of climate. This is not established, and yes... I get bogged down in the details because it is those details which "complicate" your generalization of the issue. You keep taking a lackadaisical approach to explaining scientific process and that is why you consistently make unfounded assumptions.
There is no point in going into further discussion when you have not validated your previous discussion. I know you would like to skip on, take the stand that somehow you are valid and that we can excuse the discrepancies in your claims to get on to the "bigger picture" you so like to speak of, but the problem is that if your premise is false, then so is everything that builds off your premise.
So, like I said, first establish your previous point, then... once that is settled, we can move on to another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
The problem with using such as evidence is that you are not even sure as to what is actually going on in those pictures. You have not established what is smog, what is not, etc... The pictures also are not evidence of anything as the manner to which they are taken often can be manipulated to provide "effect" to a given position. The pictures are pointless to establishing any valid point.
I have seen numerous pictures where the person using them as a point manipulated the photo to "enhance" them to an effect. Also, I have seen photos that claim they are of something, but are not as such because they failed to research the occurrence to properly identify what it is they are actually seeing. I brought up the coal plants as an example where the large plumes of water vapor are often used to show pollution. Like I said, those pictures are meaningless.
As for if I believe in pollution, sure... I know it exists, but... each occurrence is locally significant and what causes things like you display are not always simple to the cause you imply. So, using pictures as you do is just an emotional plea to shock people visually.
Let us get back to the main point though.
You claim AGW establishes significance, this is not true. AGW simply means that man contributes C02 and C02 is a component in warming. AGW does not establish how much man contributes, how much C02 plays a part in the process and if it has any significant effects on climate. That is all debateable, that is the point of contention among scientists and it varies from position to position.
So then AGW is not valid by your definition there, am I correct.
Quote:
CAGW is the term which implies it is having a noticeable effect on climate. This has not even remotely been established. It is simply a hypothesis and one that has consistently failed observational verifications.
If it were simply noticeable, then it would be called something else. CAGW specifically refers to abrupt and catastrophic climate change, meaning it would be coming in the coming decades. You're right however about it failing.
Quote:
So, if you are willing to accept that, we can move on to something else, but if you are going to continue to confuse the issue, then it is a pointless venture. You have been shown to be wrong, there is no need for me to keep giving your argument credibility by entertaining its failed premise.
You can't suit terms to your liking. You can't even properly talk about these terms without twisting them.
This isn't a scientific paper, it isn't a response to a scientific position, etc...
It is simply a point concerning the discussions of the topic concerning "significance" which dv1033 likes to say I am getting hung up on.
Emphasis is mine.
This is the issue. The constant confusion to hide the facts of the issue, confuse the positions, and dismiss the details to which the entire point of contention exists.
So then you admit that man is influencing the climate, but we don't know how significant that influence is?
- Everyone agrees that Climate Change is happening. To say "They don't believe in Climate Change" is a lie. We've been taught since grade school that the earth expands, contracts, heats up, cools down, etc. Climate Change is a constant & always has been. This is not in debate.
- What is actually in debate is the degree which humans contribute to AGW.
- Carbon Monoxide/Greenhouse Gases speed up the process of Climate Change & this is what we humans are accused of. This is why we're "going green", etc. to reduce Carbon Monoxide/Greenhouse Gas emissions.
- Here's where the alarmists lose me & pretty much anyone else who's thinking logically. Humans account for less than 1% of Carbon Monoxide/Greenhouse Gas emissions. Actually we account for 0.28% if you don't include water vapor which is around 97% of Greenhouse Gas emissions. If we decide that humans are also responsible for water vapor then that number goes up to 5.5%.
- So, let's use the worst-case-scenario of 5.5% of Climate Change being man made. If every person on the planet simultaneously stopped using all fossil fuels altogether we might shave that number by 1%. Certainly not enough to stop the inevitable & completely organic process of Climate Change.
- Instead of trying to force Governments world wide to comply, launching a new global system of taxation that the Corporate Bankers get to hold/profit from , instead of infringing on people's way of life, infringing on their livelihoods, all in the name of not actually stopping Climate Change, why not invest our money here in our country in ways to deal with & adapt to the coming Climate Change? That would be investment in the United States. American technology, American jobs, American leadership, etc?
Sign in to read: Cleaner skies explain surprise rate of warming - environment - 09 July 2008 - New Scientist
2008
GOODBYE air pollution and smoky chimneys, hello brighter days. That's been the trend in Europe for the past three decades - but unfortunately cleaning up the skies has allowed more of the sun's rays to pierce the atmosphere, contributing to at least half the warming that has occurred.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
