The point is to do both. If you read the Posting Guidelines you would understand.
Climate change forum section?
- Thread starter mrfintoil
- Start date
Mendel
Senior Member.
I looked at the statements you quoted, but I don't understand what exactly in them you don't agree with.
The source of the CO2 in the atmosphere is tracked via the proportion of Carbon (C) isotopes. Fossil fuels have more decayed Carbon because they were buried underground, and that carries over to the CO2 produced by burning them.
Fallingdown
Active Member
You're a critical thinker. I'm a lateral thinker. I am approaching this problem differently so it might take a second to see where I am at.
(this is from personal experience and countless debate with the man-made global warming people)
My point is that when I discuss manmade global warming with people. They always pound on the premise that Man is a driver in global warming. It is due to the CO2 emissions produced since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Which began about 150 or 200 years ago take your pick.
The problem I have with that theory is . Taking say a 200 year snapshot of history from the last 450,000 years + of warming and cooling cycles then claiming it is proof of a never before seen spike in CO2 and temperature. What about the other 448,800 years don't they count?
be hypothesis nothing more than hyperbole because they can't supported that evidence with corresponding time periods from previous warming cycles.
To date no one has ever been able to pick out 200 year increments in the each of the last 450,000 years of warming trends for comparison.
That's where the honest discussion ends. And we enter the realm of unfalsifiable Argument.
Instead of addressing my question directly people will use a variety of dodge tactics to avoid answering the question. Usually they'll say atmospheric CO2 is 420 ppm there's your proof . Neglecting that the Basic theory of man-made emissions has been around since the 19th century long before CO2 levels reached 420 ppm. Which I will point out and to avoid an argument ask them to point out a 200 year increments prior to the year 2000.
[url]https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Dragon_in_My_Garage[/url]
Then the dodge it becomes solar radiation,Solar radiant heating
Or any argument to avoid directly answering the question. Because they know it can't be answered.
This is where the discussion and most conspiracies depart from unfalsifiable Argument . To a variation of the" A fire breathing dragon lives in my garage" Argument
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Dragon_in_My_Garage
Again I guess I have two points to make on this matter. Asking them to show a corresponding time period. Puts them in a situation that I won't say is impossible to answer. But is highly unlikely anyone will ever be able to supply an answer for supporting data.
But because of peoples beliefs in these theories they become more of a religion. Even with the obvious staring them in the face many can't bring their self to give an honest answer. Which makes the whole debate disingenuous and fruitless. Which brings me to my second point of why bother? And that explains my no vote on this thread.
Last edited:
deirdre
Senior Member.
i'm not following you. how can they show a corresponding time period if there are no corresponding time periods? aren't YOU supposed to show a corresponding time period that would prove their assertion wrong?
Fallingdown
Active Member
No to make a accurate claim you have to show a corresponding a time period to support your claim in order to show that it is valid.
Here's an example.
You smell like the color nine.
Now prove me wrong. Lol
Edit;
I'm on 4 sites currently. But I just reread my reply and I'm afraid you might take it the wrong way. It was meant for amusement.
The claim that you smell like the color nine will be refuted along the lines of the dragon in my garage Argument.
If you reply that you can't smell the color nine.
I would say yes I can my family has a genetic abnormality that allows us to smell colors.
You're a natural response would be prove it.
I would say sadly I wish I could but all of those records were destroyed in the fire.
My point being is to make that insertion without supplying data in support of my premise makes it unfalsifiable.
I sure hope you chuckled when you read it.
Last edited:
deirdre
Senior Member.
but their alleged claim is that it is unprecedented. you gave us the definition of unprecedented "never known before".
How can they show something that doesnt exist?
as i said..i'm not following your logic at all. (and i do smell like the color nine)
Fallingdown
Active Member
I don't see how you can't follow. Their alleged claim and they are making the claim is that the change is unprecedented.
Therefore the burden of proof is on them to substantiate such a sensational claim.
And they can't as you yourself have stated.
Unsubstantiated claims shouldn't be taken seriously.
As for smell the color nine.
Did you read the "there's a dragon in my garage argument" I posted.
If you did and still don't understand. just for fun try and get me to admit that I can't smell the color nine.
And I'll show you how my unsubstantiated claim is unfalsifiable.
deirdre
Senior Member.
no. you post super long comments and i have a low attention span.
or... you could just prove their claim wrong by showing by showing a 200 year period that disproves them.
Fallingdown
Active Member
It's not up to me to prove a baseless theory. It's up to them to support their theory. On which their entire argument hinges on.
They could just show me a 200 year period that proves I am wrong.
For that matter
My point is they can't so why should I bother?
Last edited:
deirdre
Senior Member.
that's silly.
Fallingdown
Active Member
Why you want me to show a 200 year period. To prove it isn't?
At this point in time I need to ask you a question. Do you believe that mans CO2 emissions during the industrial age are a driving force in climate change.
deirdre
Senior Member.
driving force? i have no idea but considering the huge population jump since before the industrial revolution, it is logical to assume all the crap we pump into the air has some effect.
i dont read those studies, because i wouldnt understand what im reading anyway.
Do you believe we caused the hole in the ozone with our a/c and hairspray?
Last edited:
Mendel
Senior Member.
You still haven't shown me a source that claims that.
What you have shown me are claims that this spike is man-made.
So what we have here is a garage filled with provably man-made CO2 from burning fossil fuels that is also heating up. You're telling me it must be caused by something else, but can't show me what it is. Who has the invisible dragon, you or I?
Temperatures in Greenland going back 12000 years
Article: 
I know I've discussed this kind of evidence before, this year even, but I am having trouble finding it: did it end up in Rambles?
Fallingdown
Active Member
Don't have a opinion on it.
deirdre
Senior Member.
Rambles shows up in in-site searches. but the in-site search is finicky.
Fallingdown
Active Member
You must have missed this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change
Which is my point. By pure logic the man-made emissions spike could only have happened during the industrial revolution and ramped up during the fossil fuel age. (refer to wiki quote and link)
That was even the basis for inconvenient truth by Al gore.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth
The claim that the omissions spiked during that period. Seems logical on the surface. But they don't supply definitive support for that theory by comparing similar time spans over previous warming trends while making that sensationalized claim.
Basically it's the same thing as me stepping outside and saying "this is the hottest day on record" without checking the record.
Then I would be making a assertion without any support to my claim.
This is a lateral approach to a common problem. I think our miscommunication is occurring because you guys are critical thinking the hell out of it. Lol
Last edited:
deirdre
Senior Member.
the scientists do. your wiki quote sources do. Members here on MB do if the topic comes up.
You are basically arguing for your backwards logic based on some people you chat with on Facebook? who are "they"?
Fallingdown
Active Member
Really?
Then you should be able to point out a correlation when the temperature rose drastically during a 200 year time span in each of the last warming cycles. To support your position.
Oh wait your response is going to be to tell me to do it.
https://fallacyinlogic.com/burden-of-proof-fallacy-definition-and-examples/
We've been over this. At this point I take your replies to be disingenuous and not a honest discussion. Requiring no further debate.
Any claim of a precedent is indeed unsupported by evidence. RIght now we have plenty of evidence of no precedent spanning the entirety of human history.
You seem to be unaware that ice cores can be read (which includes CO2 levels) to incredibly high precision - in a good core, even individual seasons can be detected - all the way back from when we weren't properly human yet. Prior earth history I consider irrelevant, we're not looking at Gaia's life support system, we're looking at humans'. So the earth we need to consider is the one we live on, not the one with no plants on land, or when trilobites ruled the waves, or when cold-blooded animals a hundred times our size were cock-of-the-roost.
Fallingdown
Active Member
No I'm completely aware of the estimates of CO2 levels in ice cores.
The following graph represents the temperature spike from the year 1800 to the year 2000 a 200 year period. The year 1800 is indicated by the partial red arrow.
Now using ice core data show me that exact 200 year time span on any of these earlier three cycles.
I have no doubt or do I dispute that CO2 levels have increased over the last 10,000 years. Every form of measurement says so.
My point is nobody can match that exact 200 year time span to support the claim of a never before seen increase in CO2 during a 200 year time span.
I think you are earnestly trying to understand my point.
So..,,,
Try not to overthink what I'm saying. I'm approaching this laterally. Critical thinking on the issue will make it impossible for you to understand the simplicity of the statement.
No. Because that's not the "ice core data". That's a simplified graphic created from the ice core data in order to get a particular point accross.
Would you claim to know everything about a sports car from one photo? Why do you do the same with utterly enormous datasets? And they are enormous - storing the data in its rawest form takes up many many huge refrigerated warehouses around the world.
Fallingdown
Active Member
Well it's official. Although everywhere else I posted it people understood. No one here is able to understand my point.
I'll check in from time to time to see if anyone has a aha moment in their subconscious.
BTW
No I wouldn't claim I know everything from the picture of one car. But Al Gore claimed he knew everything from the picture of one graph.
Take care everybody.
deirdre
Senior Member.
i dont understand how you think that would support the position. That would debunk the position.
as i said before, i am not understanding you.
Mendel
Senior Member.
You didn't quote this before. The claim is, "but the current changes are more rapid than any known events in Earth's history", do you disagree?
I don't understand why you demand this?
Earth is getting warmer now, climate science is looking at the current factors that affect warming now, which works well because we have large amounts of measurements for now and very little for thousands of years ago.
You are arguing that the understanding of now is invalid unless we also understand what happened thousands of years ago, to which I say that this condition is unreasonable and illogocal, and that I'd bet there are some scientists who actually do understand this quite well.
tadaaa
Senior Member
isn't it no more complicated than
"things that have human causes now, can have natural causes in the past"
so in the last 100 years forest fires overwhelming human causes, 200 million years ago natural causes
climate change now is human caused (over human timescales) whereas in the geological past it was natural (over geological timescales)
with both having CO2 as an important "control knob" function re temperature
"things that have human causes now, can have natural causes in the past"
so in the last 100 years forest fires overwhelming human causes, 200 million years ago natural causes
climate change now is human caused (over human timescales) whereas in the geological past it was natural (over geological timescales)
with both having CO2 as an important "control knob" function re temperature
Mauro
Senior Member.
@Fallingdown : the graph you posted is misleading.
The rise in temperatures due to global warming happened in the last 200 years (just google 'climate hockey-stick' graph). In the graph you posted each pixel corresponds to 555 years (about 90 pixels every 50kyears): this means the whole spike of global warming should not even be half a pixel wide in your graph, no wonder it does not show at all. On the vertical axis the graph stops at 310ppm CO2, but today's CO2 concentration is 419ppm: it's even out of the graph. This is a corrected and less misleading version of your graph:
It now looks pretty much an unprecedented CO2 spike, doesn't it? And notice the line I drew is two pixels wide for clarity, but it should be less than half a pixel wide to scale correctly also on the X-axis, even spikier than it looks. I'd rather not wait for the temperature delta to show up the same before starting to do something...
The rise in temperatures due to global warming happened in the last 200 years (just google 'climate hockey-stick' graph). In the graph you posted each pixel corresponds to 555 years (about 90 pixels every 50kyears): this means the whole spike of global warming should not even be half a pixel wide in your graph, no wonder it does not show at all. On the vertical axis the graph stops at 310ppm CO2, but today's CO2 concentration is 419ppm: it's even out of the graph. This is a corrected and less misleading version of your graph:
It now looks pretty much an unprecedented CO2 spike, doesn't it? And notice the line I drew is two pixels wide for clarity, but it should be less than half a pixel wide to scale correctly also on the X-axis, even spikier than it looks. I'd rather not wait for the temperature delta to show up the same before starting to do something...
Last edited:
deirdre
Senior Member.
good catch. i was wondering why there was a thousand year gap of white on his chart.
Mauro
Senior Member.
-
The data come from an ice core, I guess they have to discard the first few superficial meters of the drilling due to contamination issues or maybe the ice not being yet compacted enough or some other technical reason. One thousand year should be about the first 10 meters (Vostok Ice Core was 3623m deep).
Inti
Senior Member.
Here is a starting point for an answer to your question. Here is another. It is unreasonable to expect a brief answer that does justice to the mass of evidence, which is why Metabunk has never tried to do so.
The fact that you refer to the overwhelming proportion of climate scientists, who have studied climate change and concluded that it is real, serious and caused by human action, as "fanatics" suggests that it is not them but you who are motivated by irrational factors.
The IPCC is the UN body which collates, describes and summarises the conclusions of climate science.Anyone can submit research based evidence, but almost all of that evidence supports the anthropogenic conclusion, based on multiple independent lines of research which all converge on that same conclusion.
All of the alternative explanations put forward have been repeatedly examined and found wanting through peer reviewed (and yes, falsifiable but unfalsified) science.
If you doubt this, I would suggest you start by examining the IPPC reports. If not, try the Skeptical Science website, where you can find alternatives categorised , with summaries of the relevant research which has refuted other, nonanthropogenic causal together with links to the published research papers.
I could post a long list of links to debunks of the whole range of denialist claims. But it would be absurd to try to replicate all that on Metabunk. If you believe you can refute that body of work, please take your best evidence to Skeptical Science, or to Real Climate, or And Then There's Physics, or other forums where you can explain to the specialist climate scientists why you know better than them.
Fallingdown
Active Member
Mauro
Senior Member.
Aren't 450kyears enough to prove the point? It's about twice the time Homo sapiens has been living on planet Earth.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Your point would be more persuasive if you had actually quoted a claim that refers to unknown events.
Such a sensational finding, if known anywhere, would certainly soon be widely known among climatologists; the search wouldn't need to be exhaustive if you're looking for a known precedent (that was the claim you did quote).
But I believe climatology doesn't even know any mechanism that could hypothetically cause this naturally.
Last edited:
Fallingdown
Active Member
You're gonna tell me with a straight face that you've never heard the claim that there is a climate emergency because the earth is heating faster than previously due to the industrial revolution?
Silly demands like that make me feel like you're just messing with me.
Are you ?
Last edited:
NoParty
Senior Member.
If your argument is that respected, prominent climate scientists are wrong to
be calling the the current warming "unprecedented" is it really mean of people
to ask you to cite one or two of these instances?
(so that your argument doesn't look merely like a lazy straw man?)
Fallingdown
Active Member
No once again you're putting a false burden of proof on me. I never said they were wrong. My position is they can't prove it by comparing this hundred years to every 100 year period of the last 800,000 years.
And I've linked statements that were made about (my choice of words) unprecedented.
Here's another will NASA do ?
If things keep going as they have been on this thread. He will dismiss that on a technicality and then ask me to prove it again.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming
Fallingdown
Active Member
That's great but I've never asked anyone to prove the CO2 levels are higher during this 200 year period.
That is a strawman argument.
My whole argument has been around proving examples of never before seen heat spikes in a 200 year period .
Last edited by a moderator:
Fallingdown
Active Member
I would like to ask anyone that replies to me one question. Failure to answer will mean I will ignore your post.
On a percentage of 0 to 100 are you a believer in man-made global warming?
I don't know you guys like I do everywhere else. And I don't know if I'm discussing things with a devout believer or a objective observer.
On a percentage of 0 to 100 are you a believer in man-made global warming?
I don't know you guys like I do everywhere else. And I don't know if I'm discussing things with a devout believer or a objective observer.
NoParty
Senior Member.
So...a long-winded "Yes...nothing more than a lazy straw man..."
Fallingdown
Active Member
That's pretty close to a ad-hom attack .
Don't ya think?
But I'm willing to learn. Point out exactly what part of my argument is a strawman ?
Last edited:
Fallingdown
Active Member
If you have a direct quote where I said "overwhelming proportion of climate scientist". I didn't mean it literally because it's wrong.
So let me reiterate then we can be done with this line of discussion.
"A lot" of MGW believers @including some climate scientist" believe that since the Industrial Age..... " climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events" .
As demonstrated by the words "current climatic warming"
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
What books are you reading ? (conspiracy related, science, etc...)
- Latest: NorCal Dave
-
Trending content
-
-
-
Thread 'Claim: Ancient Egyptians Could Not Work Granite Without High-Tech Diamond Tools'
- NorCal Dave
Replies: 71 -
-
