Originally posted by MacSwainWell, I learnt quick that you don't get far with gentle sirs and madames in forums.
ROFL: You certainly go for personal attacks, but I enjoy it, so don't ever change!
Of course I read responses to my posts. I found yours (in the other thread) to be well thought out, except for the "inadvertant" comment 🙂 There was the personal attack part you cannot seem to resist. Thank you! Therefore I did not feel a need to respond.
In this t ...[text shortened]... nt since you are the brightest bulb in the box. OOPS! (personal attack on my part) sorry 😉
As for the truth or not behind what the article states (I never intended to infer that the articles facts were wrong, simply that it drew the wrong conclusions from those facts either due to ignorance, or due to some agenda), I had thought I'd made it clear, but I'll rephrase. The fact that the scientific community has wavered in its interpretation of "what comes next" is unquestionable.
The constant interpretation has been that whatever is happening or going to happen, mankind has become the greatest force for environmental change (since the industrial revolution, before that our impact was on a par with low level natural causes).
While the predictions of what comes next have differed in the past, the consensus view of today, held for nearly 30 years now, based on evidence and simulations far in advance of that which has been available previously, as well as a more in depth understanding of how the climate works, is simply that the earth, due to human effects, is getting warmer on average. This leads to the inescapable conclusion that the climate is and will continue to change. There is no accurate knowledge as to whether it is fully reversible, but the logical solution is to at least attempt minimisation of emissions.
Now for that quota of one personal attack per post (nothing personal, so to speak) you say that "I found your response to be off topic to the article and felt a need to challenge your stance". You'll note that the response was a response to Wajomas post which quoted your article. In the context of his/her post my response is not off topic. Also, your article is not the crux of the thread, but simply supporting material. Supporting material that has been read and found lacking for reasons that I have posted before. (other thread)
Originally posted by mrstabbyDo these reports explain radiative windows? And how complex are the computer simulations these days. Do they still average out the land mass to one uniform height? And do the still consider the 70% of the earths surface which is water to be a static pool? The last I really looked at this issue (late 2001) this was the case. IF the predictions are based on modelling where the thousands of independent variables that influnce climate are reduced to but a handful then why should anyone be convinced when these very same simulations have little success in running models over recorded time periods. Apparently not even the best models available, when fed as their initial conditions, say the year 1939, can produce accurate predictions over the next 60 years to the year 2000, and yet we have faith that somehow these models are giving us a clear picture of the future?
Perhaps you'd care to look at the latest report itself
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_Ch06.pdf
Look at page 35 and you will clearly see MBH1999 - Mann's reconstructed curve. Go to page 34 and you'll see lots of space dedicated to explaining the hockey stick debate. Yes, the curve has been reconstructed since 1998, but that just goes to s ...[text shortened]... e about how those boys are making false claims
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=98
I think not.
1 edit
Originally posted by kmax87Well, yes they do increasingly, the reason those simplifications were used was not due to oversight but due to limitations on computing power, something that climate scientists have to worry about less and less. The fact that we are aware of the limitations of the models is the reason that they should be taken with a pinch of salt, which is the position of any reasonable person. Not a whole wheelbarrow of salt as some on these threads seem to believe is necessary.
Do these reports explain radiative windows? And how complex are the computer simulations these days. Do they still average out the land mass to one uniform height? And do the still consider the 70% of the earths surface which is water to be a static pool? The last I really looked at this issue (late 2001) this was the case. IF the predictions are based on mod ...[text shortened]... e faith that somehow these models are giving us a clear picture of the future?
I think not.
It is an inescapable fact that the climate is changing. It is a very strong theory, well supported by evidence (not just simulations either, but measurements of actual data too) that humans are the primary cause of such change. The alternative theory that man has little to no effect, as put forward by some here, remains unsupported by decent evidence. I've been waiting for three weeks for such evidence and been given none. I've even looked myself and can find none to support the position.
Originally posted by agrysonI believe you meant to use the word hypothesis and 'inadvertantly' used theory instead. No need to thank me, my pleasure. 😉
Well, yes they do increasingly, the reason those simplifications were used was not due to oversight but due to limitations on computing power, something that climate scientists have to worry about less and less. The fact that we are aware of the limitations of the models is the reason that they should be taken with a pinch of salt, which is the position of a ...[text shortened]... idence and been given none. I've even looked myself and can find none to support the position.
Originally posted by kmax87Care to give a reference for that claim? Take a look at http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/figures.html#temp the graph there shows that they can accurately predict historic mean temperature and that the observed recent increase in mean temperature is only explained by the inclusion of anthropogenic CO_2 - for the trillionth time.
.Apparently not even the best models available, when fed as their initial conditions, say the year 1939, can produce accurate predictions over the next 60 years to the year 2000, and yet we have faith that somehow these models are giving us a clear picture of the future?
Originally posted by MacSwainNo, I meant theory, a hypothesis is a conjecture to explain facts and is otherwise unfounded. A theory makes predictions which can be falsified. In this case, the prediction is that human causes will and are causing dramatic changes to global climate. This can be disproved if an alternative theory (i.e. some other cause than man) can be shown (through the provision of evidence) to be the primary cause of global climate change. Such evidence is still to be offered. Much evidence to support the theory that man is the primary cause has and continues to be offered, but apparently ignored.
I believe you meant to use the word hypothesis and 'inadvertantly' used theory instead. No need to thank me, my pleasure. 😉
Originally posted by Bosse de NageSince you agree with Agrysons' usage of the word "theory" vs "hypothesis" (I still do not agree) you add the much needed and obligatory personal attack. Thank you 😉 That certainly helped clear up any misunderstanding on climate change! Well done!
MIRACULOUS TRANSFORMATION: MACSWAIN MAKES ASS OF SELF
Now that sides have been chosen..set up the wickets and let the bowling begin.. 🙂 🙂
Originally posted by MacSwainGiven that I'm using the globally accepted definitions of the words, and have formally studied the difference between the two long before I came to this site, I'd be interested in knowing what you think the difference between the two is.
Since you agree with Agrysons' usage of the word "theory" vs "hypothesis" (I still do not agree) you add the much needed and obligatory personal attack. Thank you 😉 That certainly helped clear up any misunderstanding on climate change! Well done!
Now that sides have been chosen..set up the wickets and let the bowling begin.. 🙂 🙂
As for setting up the wickets and getting to the bowling, over the past three weeks we've already gone through 5 overs worth of links to evidence and peer reviewed articles while not a single link to such has been provided.
Care to help out on that count?
Originally posted by agrysonFrom an elementary math perspective the difference between two is more commonly referred to as one minus the other, and although this may be off topic if we apply this logic to the two terms then a Hypothesis minus a theory is nothing other than pure conjecture. Much like the hypothesis or if you will the theory, that purports to describe the origins of the species, namely evolution.
I'd be interested in knowing what you think the difference between the two is.
Originally posted by kmax87Buy a dictionary.
From an elementary math perspective the difference between two is more commonly referred to as one minus the other, and although this may be off topic if we apply this logic to the two terms then a Hypothesis minus a theory is nothing other than pure conjecture. Much like the hypothesis or if you will the theory, that purports to describe the origins of the species, namely evolution.
Read it.
Then do your best to understand what you read.
Then come back.
There is a subtle, but enormous difference between a theory and a hypothesis. They are mutually exclusive, if something is one, it cannot be the other. Thus, whatever you believe evolution to be, or whether you agree with it or not, it IS a theory. Whatever you believe to be the primary cause of climate change to be, man being a primary cause IS a theory. It's not a matter of discussion, but of definition, which is clear and in no way subjective.
What has been presented against this theory are hypotheses, if any evidence is found to support the hypotheses and predictions are made based on it, it will become a theory. So please, level the playing field so that it's not our theory against your hypotheses.
Originally posted by agrysonAgryson:
Given that I'm using the globally accepted definitions of the words, and have formally studied the difference between the two long before I came to this site, I'd be interested in knowing what you think the difference between the two is.
As for setting up the wickets and getting to the bowling, over the past three weeks we've already gone through 5 overs w ...[text shortened]... articles while not a single link to such has been provided.
Care to help out on that count?
This will be my final post on this subject. A discussion is an exchange of ideas, an argument is an exchange of hatred. Let me clear a couple of points first, to smooth the water.
1. I do not dislike you because of what you believe. I suspect you are very affable, as are all Irishmen. 😉 Hopefully my beliefs do not make you dislike me. I am no ones enemy!
2. I believe global warming is ocurring, obviously, I believe it will reverse to a cooling trend without human input.
3. My comment about cricket was intended to comically point out that everyone has chosen a side and ne'er the twain shall meet. I did NOT intend to intimate you had not fully posted evidence or that it all needed to be done again! Just my failed attempt at humor..sorry 🙁
Originally posted by MacSwain1: Goes without saying, my intention is to exchange ideas, and my comments (not directly addressed at you, but at anyone who sees human caused global warming as a weak theory) are intended in such a manner. I only wish that evidence would be put forward to support the other side of the debate, only then can the exchange of ideas really begin.
Agryson:
This will be my final post on this subject. A discussion is an exchange of ideas, an argument is an exchange of hatred. Let me clear a couple of points first, to smooth the water.
1. I do not dislike you because of what you believe. I suspect you are very affable, as are all Irishmen. 😉 Hopefully my beliefs do not make you dislike me. I am no o ...[text shortened]... sted evidence or that it all needed to be done again! Just my failed attempt at humor..sorry 🙁
2: That is a perfectly fair viewpoint, I only ask that those who hold such a viewpoint explain why and provide their reasoning and evidence, as those on my side of the debate have done.
3: I did not take your analogy as an inference that I had not fully posted evidence, my intention was merely to carry through with the analogy for the benefit of those who have not provided evidence for their convictions.
Never apologise for humour, I find it's increasingly needed in these threads.
1 edit
Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
I have no doubt that "global warming" is occurring. In fact, it's probably occurred at least 600 times during the history of the planet. This is a good thing because it staves off "global cooling" which in the past has resulted in the "Ice Age."
Wow! Global warming is a blessing in disguise! I mean if it isn't hot then it must be cold! ...[text shortened]... he planet cooking. But wait, aren't ice ages good for staving off global warming periods?