Climate change forum section?

[econ41]

On a percentage of 0 to 100 are you a believer in man-made global warming?

If you prefer it framed as a percentage I'm 95% certain that there is an escalating process commonly described as "man-made global warming".

The issues in need of debate from my perspective are "How much?" and "How fast?" Much of this specific debate has focussed on comparisons of "output" data. My position is based on the reality of the exponential increase in "inputs".

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.

Take care with the "false dichotomy" - Don't overlook the class/sub-set of "objective sceptic who is agnostic on the issues because he is not sufficiently informed on the relevant evidence nor motivated to find out."

 

[Fallingdown]

Aren't 450kyears enough to prove the point? It's about twice the time Homo sapiens has been living on planet Earth.

If you prefer it framed as a percentage I'm 95% certain that there is an escalating process commonly described as "man-made global warming".

Thank you for an honest answer.

The issues in need of debate from my perspective are "How much?" and "How fast?" Much of this specific debate has focussed on comparisons of "output" data. My poison is based on the reality of the exponential increase in "inputs".

I'm not going to argue the ins and outs of global warming because that's not my point. I don't wanna venture from my topic ever again to pollute the issue.

If you prefer it framed as a percentage I'm 95% certain that there is an escalating process commonly described as "man-made global warming".

The issues in need of debate from my perspective are "How much?" and "How fast?" Much of this specific debate has focussed on comparisons of "output" data. My poison is based on the reality of the exponential increase in "inputs".

Take care with the "false dichotomy" - Don't overlook the class/sub-set of "objective sceptic who is agnostic on the issues because he is not sufficiently informed on the relevant evidence nor motivated to find out."

How can I overlooked that because that's exactly where I am on this issue.

In fact that was the point of this thread for one particular issue.

 

[econ41]

Thank you for an honest answer.

No problem.

How can I overlooked that because that's exactly where I am on this issue.

In fact that was the point of this thread for one particular issue.

I've been watching the thread and have been aware of the polarisation and other "procedural issues".

BTW - Ooops - I've corrected the auto spellcheck issue " My poison" >is now> "My position".

 

[Fallingdown]

I've been watching the thread and have been aware of the polarisation

I think isolation would have been more accurate. Lol

My poison" >is now> "My position".

No problem I understood. I try not to sweat the small stuff.

 

[Mendel]

Earth has experienced climate change in the past without help from humanity. But the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming

You've quoted a simplified summary paragraph; "past warming events" doesn't necessarily mean all of them. The page that this paragraph links to goes into more details and says:

Article:

Models predict that Earth will warm between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius in the next century. When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual.

Source: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page3.php

So we can take this to read "unprecedented in 2 million years".
The page gives an overview of how paleoclimatology works and links to yet another more in-depth resource:

See the Earth Observatory's series Paleoclimatology for details about how scientists study past climates.

In that set of pages on paleoclimatology, there's one that introduced the evidence that goes back this far:

Article:

Ocean cores showed that the Earth passed through regular ice ages—not just the 3 or 4 recorded on land by misplaced boulders and glacial loess deposits—but 10 in the last million years, and around 100 in the last 2.5 million years.

Source: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Paleoclimatology_Evidence

So there is actually evidence to support it.

Specific places on Earth have undergone more rapid climate change, e.g. in response to changing ocean currents, but the globe as a whole hasn't, as far as we know (and that's pretty far).

The whole section on global warming on that site is 11 years out of date, but by and large I do trust it.

 

[Fallingdown]

You've quoted a simplified summary paragraph; "past warming events"

Here's another one that won't be good enough for ya.

Global warming is the *unusually rapid increase in Earth's average surface temperature over the past *century primarily due to the greenhouse gases released by people burning fossil fuels.



How Does Today's Warming Compare to Past Climate Change?

Earth has experienced climate change in the past without help from humanity. But the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events.

Why Do Scientists Think Current Warming Isn't Natural?

In Earth's history before the Industrial Revolution, Earth's climate changed due to natural causes unrelated to human activity. These natural causes are still in play today, but their influence is too small or they occur too slowly to explain the rapid warming seen in recent decades.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming


How do they know this *century's Warming is a *unusually rapid increase ?



Have they compare this *century to every *century of the last 450,000 years plus ?



Pick me one *century from 300,000 years ago and one from 150,000 years ago.



They must have data on all other Individual *centuries because they were precise about the increment that was warming at a "unusually rapid increase"



If that data is impossible to break down into 100 year periods aka * centuries.



They can't make a claim specific to one *century



Global Warming

 

[FatPhil]

they can't prove it by comparing this hundred years to every 100 year period of the last 800,000 years.

Straw man, that's not what they're doing. And you know that, as you've been told already this thread.

Edit: although it depends on what you mean by "every 100 year period". Do you mean averaged data for a 100 year period? That's not their raw data, so that's not their data. They can make it from their data, as plenty of their data's much higher precision.

 

[Fallingdown]

Straw man, that's not what they're doing. And you know that, as you've been told already this thread.

That's not a strawman that's precisely my position.

How do we know the " unusually rapid warming " in the 100 year period that they specified is indeed unusual ?

They can't specifically pick out every hundred years period for comparison.

Unless they've studied the last 800,000 years of ice cores in 100 year increments they can't make such a specific claim.

 

[Mendel]

Unless they've studied the last 800,000 years of ice cores in 100 year increments they can't make such a specific claim.

They have, though, and your source (NASA Earth observatory) shows it.
You're arguing from incredulity here, but "I can't believe that's true" is not a logical argument.

 

[Fallingdown]

They have, though, and your source (NASA Earth observatory) shows it.
You're arguing from incredulity here, but "I can't believe that's true" is not a logical argument.

Is it safe to assume that the reason you skip over my question is that you can't supply any links for your claims?

 

[Ann K]

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.

There are also "devout disbelievers", so you're presenting a false dichotomy.

 

[deirdre]

so what was your answer to the thread topic question again?

 

[Fallingdown]

There are also "devout disbelievers", so you're presenting a false dichotomy.

True

But you're wrong about the false dichotomy. I didn't limit the number of sources. I just asked for information on one of them.

A false dilemma, also referred to as false dichotomy, is an informal fallacy based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available. ... For example, a false dilemma is committed when it is claimed that, "Stacey spoke out against capitalism; therefore, she must be a communist".

[h3][/h3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Has anybody found it the least bit odd. That over the last week or so. As I've posted I'm ganged up on by at least three members who disagree with every single thing I say ?

 

[Fallingdown]

so what was your answer to the thread topic question again?

The thread topic is whether we should have a climate change forum.

And I've already given my position.

I said no.

 

[Mendel]

Is it safe to assume that the reason you skip over my question is that you can't supply any links for your claims?

I skip over them because they are "do my work for me while I sit back and watch" type questions.

 

[Inti]

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

I am afraid I don't understand your point. The reality is that almost all scientists with specialist knowledge of climate change are convinced that it is real and caused by human actions, specifically by the release of greenhouse gases. That consensus has been established by a number of studies of the scientific literature.

There are multiple lines of evidence leading to these conclusions. For details, see the references I gave earlier.

Now, in any field of expertise, when I find out that 97 percent of those with detailed knowledge of the field support a conclusion, I would need very strong evidence indeed to contradict them. No such evidence exists.

 

[Mendel]

And I've already given my position.

Your position seems to be a two-fold speculation:
1. Rapid climate change might have happened naturally in pre-historic times, we just don't know about it;
2. rapid climate change is happening naturally now, but the climatologists fail to explain this mechanism properly, possibly for ideological reasons.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Otherwise, please show evidence.