Science of Global Warming

Okay, Sier asked for it so go wild.

To be perfectly honest, I'm very much unmotivated about this because:

A) The science is pretty much settled, as far as it concerns the political policies, and I don't think I can get anything useful out of this so probably for me it is a complete waste of time.

B and related to A) I've pretty much seen most of the counter arguments and the only excitement is to play the bingo: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fun:Gl...g_denial_Bingo


But hey, I might get surprised ....


LOLOLOLOL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xywalan

Okay, Sier asked for it so go wild.

To be perfectly honest, I'm very much unmotivated about this because:

A) The science is pretty much settled, as far as it concerns the political policies, and I don't think I can get anything useful out of this so probably for me it is a complete waste of time.

B and related to A) I've pretty much seen most of the counter arguments and the only excitement is to play the bingo: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fun:Gl...g_denial_Bingo


But hey, I might get surprised ....


LOLOLOLOL.

---

My rebuttal:

Please list specific scientific examples for why you believe Global Warming is being caused by human activity on a massive scale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xywalan

A) The science is pretty much settled, as far as it concerns the political policies, and I don't think I can get anything useful out of this so probably for me it is a complete waste of time.

---

Point A) Pursuing knowledge is very rarely a waste of time. I agree that certain aspects of the science behind the theory of Global Warming follow natural law. I do not, however, agree that A + B = D. Just because evidence A is scientific, and evidence B is scientific, does not necessarily mean evidence D is the summary conclusion. For instance - If I drop a piece of ice into a warm bathtub, I can assume that the water will get marginally colder. It will not, however, lower my household temperature by 10 degrees. This is an example of exaggerating a natural law to present an erroneous conclusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xywalan

B and related to A) I've pretty much seen most of the counter arguments and the only excitement is to play the bingo: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fun:Gl...g_denial_Bingo

---

Point B) You probably should not assume you are privy to my counter arguments. I could most certainly post a laundry list of links, but that really has nothing to do with an intelligent discussion other than to cite sources. Please specify which points you wish to be discussed.

I have never submitted a school report only consisting of a bibliography without actual content. It would not grade well, nor would it speak for my capacity to think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xywalan

But hey, I might get surprised ....


LOLOLOLOL.

---

The overt sarcasm in lieu of a scientific response has been noted.

My opening points are as follows:

• Global Warming is based on human activity is plausible on a microscopic scale (See bathtub example), but overly exaggerated.
• Climate Change is almost certainly a believable event, but it is not preventable at our current level of technology, as we lack the means of directly controlling our own weather patterns.

Please list the areas of science and explicit evidences which would discredit the above points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sier

Please list specific scientific examples for why you believe Global Warming is being caused by human activity on a massive scale.

---

Such a modest request!

I guess I'll try a very very brief summary of core issues:

1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas due to its physical properties.
2) CO2 has a long life cycle in the atmosphere.
3) We know pretty accurately how much CO2 has been added by human activity. It is large enough to have a significant impact.
4) So it is pretty much settled that say a doubling of CO2 will have some warming effects.
5) The warming trend is visible, undeniable and it not explained unless you include the increase in the CO2 concentrations due to human activity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sier

Point A) Pursuing knowledge is very rarely a waste of time.

---

Yeah but I am very much skeptical of me getting anything useful out of this discussion but you claimed to have strong evidence to the contrary and against the consensus so I'm giving it a shot. You cannot be asking me to give it a shot and at the same time demand that I be enthusiastic. I'm not going to lie, I'll be probably very fucking bored.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xywalan

Such a modest request!

I guess I'll try a very very brief summary of core issues:

1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas due to its physical properties.
2) CO2 has a long life cycle in the atmosphere.
3) We know pretty accurately how much CO2 has been added by human activity. It is large enough to have a significant impact.
4) So it is pretty much settled that say a doubling of CO2 will have some warming effects.
5) The warming trend is visible, undeniable and it not explained unless you include the increase in the CO2 concentrations due to human activity.




Yeah but I am very much skeptical of me getting anything useful out of this discussion but you claimed to have strong evidence to the contrary and against the consensus so I'm giving it a shot. You cannot be asking me to give it a shot and at the same time demand that I be enthusiastic. I'm not going to lie, I'll be probably very fucking bored.

---

1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas due to its physical properties.

I agree.

2) CO2 has a long life cycle in the atmosphere.

I agree.

3) We know pretty accurately how much CO2 has been added by human activity. It is large enough to have a significant impact.

I disagree that we have accurate data on this. Additionally, I disagree that there is a good method for seperating human, and non-human sources of CO2 from whichever mechanism is being used to facilitate this statement. Which method of measurement are you referring to, specifically? I want to ensure we are on the same page before I respond completely.

4) So it is pretty much settled that say a doubling of CO2 will have some warming effects.

I agree. I disagree, however, on the extent of the warming effects.

5) The warming trend is visible, undeniable and it not explained unless you include the increase in the CO2 concentrations due to human activity.

Please provide pre-1800 "Trends", and provide on what you base these figures on. I want to ensure we are on the same page before I respond completely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xywalan

Yeah but I am very much skeptical of me getting anything useful out of this discussion but you claimed to have strong evidence to the contrary and against the consensus so I'm giving it a shot. You cannot be asking me to give it a shot and at the same time demand that I be enthusiastic. I'm not going to lie, I'll be probably very fucking bored.

---

That's fine. I'll go into this assuming you are of this mindset.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sier

3) We know pretty accurately how much CO2 has been added by human activity. It is large enough to have a significant impact.

I disagree that we have accurate data on this. Additionally, I disagree that there is a good method for seperating human, and non-human sources of CO2 from whichever mechanism is being used to facilitate this statement. Which method of measurement are you referring to, specifically? I want to ensure we are on the same page before I respond completely.

---

3.1) We have a lower bound on how much human activity has added CO2.
3.2) We don't need to separate the CO2 in the atmosphere into "human caused" and "natural".
3.3) There is also a long history of CO2 measurements from 1950 that started by Keeling. It started as a one-man project and now it is a global effort.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sier

5) The warming trend is visible, undeniable and it not explained unless you include the increase in the CO2 concentrations due to human activity.

Please provide pre-1800 "Trends", and provide on what you base these figures on. I want to ensure we are on the same page before I respond completely.

---

Pre 1800 trends are not needed to prove AGW. They are nice to have though. If it makes you feel better, we can just ignore the entire scientific research into the history of Earth pre-industrial age. Still the warming trends are undeniable and cannot be explained without considering human activity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sier

My opening points are as follows:

• Global Warming is based on human activity is plausible on a microscopic scale (See bathtub example), but overly exaggerated.
• Climate Change is almost certainly a believable event, but it is not preventable at our current level of technology, as we lack the means of directly controlling our own weather patterns.

Please list the areas of science and explicit evidences which would discredit the above points.

---

Forgot about these.

I guess we are discussing the first point. Regarding the second, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "not preventable".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xywalan

3.1) We have a lower bound on how much human activity has added CO2.
3.2) We don't need to separate the CO2 in the atmosphere into "human caused" and "natural".
3.3) There is also a long history of CO2 measurements from 1950 that started by Keeling. It started as a one-man project and now it is a global effort.



Pre 1800 trends are not needed to prove AGW. They are nice to have though. If it makes you feel better, we can just ignore the entire scientific research into the history of Earth pre-industrial age. Still the warming trends are undeniable and cannot be explained without considering human activity.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xywalan

3.1) We have a lower bound on how much human activity has added CO2.

---

Unfortunately, a lower bound of less than 200 years is able to only provide a brief snapshot. Whether you are of the notion the Earth is 6 billion years old, or 6000 years old, it is insufficient data due the constantly changing weather patterns of the planet.

We still do not have good data on what caused previous ice ages and global warming events. Was it sunspots, volcanic eruptions, meteor events? We can't even get a good grasp on whether or not it will be snowing, or warm 2 days out sometimes. We certainly don't know whether or not the Earth will continue to follow the same trend it has been for the remarkably small snapshot of 200 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xywalan

3.2) We don't need to separate the CO2 in the atmosphere into "human caused" and "natural".

---

If the intention is to cast some type of blame on Global Warming on humans based on CO2 activity, then I disagree. It is important to seperate it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xywalan

3.3) There is also a long history of CO2 measurements from 1950 that started by Keeling. It started as a one-man project and now it is a global effort.

---

In spite of my stance on the theory of Global Warming, I think this is a good idea. Data is data. What I do disagree with is whether or not the rising carbon levels are a factor in the Global Warming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xywalan

Pre 1800 trends are not needed to prove AGW. They are nice to have though. If it makes you feel better, we can just ignore the entire scientific research into the history of Earth pre-industrial age. Still the warming trends are undeniable and cannot be explained without considering human activity.

---

I prefer not to ignore evidence which is being actively used to declare a theory as fact. Let's talk about the primary pre-1800 indicator scientists use, which put some steam into the above points.

Ice Core Samples

Here is a small rundown on what the ice core measurement process looks like (Source: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2616/c...-to-ice-cores/). I'm not going to paste the whole thing, as it's simply too much information for this forum. Here's a small snapshot however which is useful for our discussion:

The oldest ice cores, from East Antarctica, provide an 800,000-year-old record of Earth’s climate. How do we know they’re that old? Each season’s snowfall has slightly different properties than the last. These differences create annual layers in the ice that can be used to count the age of the ice, just like rings inside a tree.

However, the more the ice compacts and the less that snow accumulates, the harder it is to see these annual layers. To analyze the age of the deepest layers, scientists use a variety of methods, including measurements of the chemical composition and electrical conductivity of the ice. Scientists also use computer modeling techniques that can help to understand the relationship between the depth of the core and the age of the ice.


There are a couple of problems with this:

Problem 1. We are working under the assumption that layers are easily quantifiable. They are not. Here is just one example:
(Source: https://www.popularmechanics.com/fli...-in-greenland/) A WW2 airplane from 1942 was found in Greenland under 260 feet of ice in 1988. The annual ice layer in Greenland in that area is 1 foot today. An average of 5 feet of ice was found to have been formed over the planes each year for 46 years. Based upon ice core data, these planes were from the year 1758.

Problem 2. Uniformity and Multiple Annual Layers - The idea that seasonal changes were the same in the distant past as they are now.
(Source: https://creation.com/do-greenland-ic...-annual-layers) There is quite a bit of information in this article to digest. Making the assumption, however, that one layer = 1 year is flatly incorrect. Was there an odd weather pattern one year? Was there a catastrophic event? Was there a massive ice age? Was there a global warming event? All kinds of things discredit a 1:1 ratio.

If you cannot reasonably count past history in ice core data, you lose the capability to accurately catalogue the carbon in these ice layers.

As a creationist who discourages "Ignoring Science", I would also discourage someone who is not a creationist to "Ignore Science". If you have a set pattern that can be quantified, that's great. If you have an unset pattern that cannot be quantified, cannot be verified, and has shown to be prone to extreme error, then you do not have science. You have science fiction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xywalan

Forgot about these.

I guess we are discussing the first point. Regarding the second, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "not preventable".

---

I mean that the global weather patterns are always changing, and cannot currently be altered by humanity at our current stage in technology. To alter those global patterns we would need to have a vastly more powerful method in altering the Earth's atmosphere in it's entirety (Temperature, Humidity Levels, Sun Activity).


I would like to clarify my stance on one item: It's absolutely assanine to expect humanity to rely on fossil futures forever (Granted, for different reasons than we are discussing). But that technology to change this is not going to be solar, hydro, or fission based power. Environmentally, I discredit it to be a "Large Factor" in climate change, as I indicate above. STRATEGICALLY, no country does itself any favors by locking itself in to needing a set resource. It will be the invention of "Cheap Fusion Power", which we might start to tickle at the fringes at in our lifetimes. Solar is a distraction as it is extremely environmentally problematic to create, and continue to maintain the neccessary panels. Hydro is great, assuming you have the capacity and the location to utilize it. Fission based power has its own set of complications and nasty byproduct.

Quote:

---

As a creationist who discourages "Ignoring Science", I would also discourage someone who is not a creationist to "Ignore Science". If you have a set pattern that can be quantified, that's great. If you have an unset pattern that cannot be quantified, cannot be verified, and has shown to be prone to extreme error, then you do not have science. You have science fiction.

---

This. This exactly. Thank you. "Science" is not an alternative to "religion", and whether your religion is theist or atheist, fundamentalist or liberal, etc, etc, etc, letting your preconceptions influence your interpretation of the data is not science.

(That said, though: We are all human, and it's natural to let our expectations influence us. But we have to acknowledge that such influence is NOT science, and that we have to fight against it.)

Quote:

---

I would like to clarify my stance on one item: It's absolutely assanine to expect humanity to rely on fossil futures forever (Granted, for different reasons than we are discussing). But that technology to change this is not going to be solar, hydro, or fission based power. Environmentally, I discredit it to be a "Large Factor" in climate change, as I indicate above. STRATEGICALLY, no country does itself any favors by locking itself in to needing a set resource. It will be the invention of "Cheap Fusion Power", which we might start to tickle at the fringes at in our lifetimes. Solar is a distraction as it is extremely environmentally problematic to create, and continue to maintain the neccessary panels. Hydro is great, assuming you have the capacity and the location to utilize it. Fission based power has its own set of complications and nasty byproduct.

---

Interesting. My view is that many different forms of energy generation have their places. Solar energy, for instance, is spectacular as a means of reducing your hot water bill (just pump your water up onto a black vessel on the roof before sending it into your water heater), even if you never turn it into electricity. Solar electricity is great for outback phone booths, too. Hydro is of definite value, and doesn't have to have terrible environmental impact; but I don't think it should ever be the sole power source for a city. Other energy sources (wind, wave, etc, etc) also have plenty of value in their own places.

I'm with you on fission, though. Lots of nasty byproducts. Fusion should be entirely better than fission.

Quote:

---

Unfortunately, a lower bound of less than 200 years is able to only provide a brief snapshot. Whether you are of the notion the Earth is 6 billion years old, or 6000 years old, it is insufficient data due the constantly changing weather patterns of the planet.

---

How is that relevant? We can talking about how much humans have added CO2. You can calculate that by figuring out how much fossil fuel we have burned, how many trees we have cut down and so on. It has nothing to do with the age of Earth.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

3.2) We don't need to separate the CO2 in the atmosphere into "human caused" and "natural".

---

If the intention is to cast some type of blame on Global Warming on humans based on CO2 activity, then I disagree. It is important to seperate it.

---

You can disagree all you want but that's not how science work. You do not come up with an arbitrary test and demand that the scientists follow your method. Science is essentially detective work with nature.

And for this particular point, your demand that "we must be able to separate CO2 molecules in the air coming from human activities" is arbitrary and useless.

Quote:

---

What I do disagree with is whether or not the rising carbon levels are a factor in the Global Warming.

---

What? That literally was the topic of points 1 and 2 I made earlier and you said you agreed with them.

Quote:

---

I prefer not to ignore evidence which is being actively used to declare a theory as fact.

---

Fine by me. It makes my life easier.

Quote:

---

Problem 1. We are working under the assumption that layers are easily quantifiable. They are not. Here is just one example:

---

All data that come from ice cores are calibrated. The assumption that you mentioned is not really how it works over very long periods of time. It does not matter if we have 100 years of anomaly in tens or hundreds of thousands of years as it will all average out. It is all the matter of getting statistics right.

Quote:

---

Problem 2. Uniformity and Multiple Annual Layers - The idea that seasonal changes were the same in the distant past as they are now.

---

It's the same misunderstanding. You need only a calibration step and then you can throw away the "uniformity" assumption because you are working with a statistical aggregate.

Quote:

---

I mean that the global weather patterns are always changing, and cannot currently be altered by humanity at our current stage in technology. To alter those global patterns we would need to have a vastly more powerful method in altering the Earth's atmosphere in it's entirety (Temperature, Humidity Levels, Sun Activity).

---

That is absolutely false. We can just blow just a fraction of total number of nukes and burn off a rain forest here and there to essentially create a nuclear winter. The ability to completely fuck up the climate of Earth has always been there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rosuav

This. This exactly. Thank you. "Science" is not an alternative to "religion", and whether your religion is theist or atheist, fundamentalist or liberal, etc, etc, etc, letting your preconceptions influence your interpretation of the data is not science.

---

Science will always be at odds with religion as long as religion makes claims about the material world: if your religion claims the existence of the supernatural (angels, or demons), or the existence of "soul" in humans, or the existence of traditional notion of "free will", or the existence of "miracles", or claims a particular history for humans that is at odds with biology (i.e., creationism, being descended from only a couple, humans living for centuries in the past, existence of giant humans, etc.), or claims about particular history of Earth and universe (young Earth, or flat Earth) then it will be at odds with science.