Bad scientists: you have given bad info on global warming

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm not sure I follow, what other big global environmental issues would be amenable to an IPCC type organisations, and are struggling with credibility currently?

I don't think there's anyone who doubts the seriousness of, say, deforestation or soil salinity these days.
 
I mean, hit the enter key some times.

Like this.

Okay, not as often as this, but you get the picture. It breaks up the wall of text a bit and makes it easier to read.

you mean if you see 10 sentences spaced by paragraphs, they are easier to read than seeing them without paragraphs? I find there is a difference between reading and looking at a post. The difficulty in reading a sentence is in how it is composed, not how much it is spaced from the previous one. Do you read posts or just look at them? It's funny how in this forum, when someone is short of ideas with which to defend their position, instead of just refrain from posting, they start criticizing everything but the content of the posts themselves.
 
You forgot to capitalize "you". How can I understand your post if I can't determine where sentences start?

Spoiler :
I'm kidding, I'm kidding :)
 
For the last time, annual adaptation to seasonal change is not the same thing as adaptation to abrupt change in the pattern of seasonal change.
No other species on Earth (except humans) can even tell the difference. And, I disagree with your use of the term "abrupt". Because climate change is anything but.

Why would we need to know the movement of every particle in the Earth's atmosphere to know the conditions of certain gases there?
Loaded question. That's not what I said. We don't need perfect measurements, we just need much more accuracy than we've currently got. And I'll tell you exactly what we do need that will make me happy: lots more measuring stations, maybe a couple thousand, spaced evenly all over the planet. In cities and in suburbs and in the wild. Over land and over water. High up and down low. And underwater. So that we can see, with reasonable accuracy, where CO2 is coming from and where it's going.

Side note: practically the moment I typed that, I found a claim somewhere on the Internet that CO2 is a fast-mixing gas. Making it (supposedly) very difficult to tell where high CO2 levels are coming from. I threw that claim away, because it makes the problem untestable. Gremlin in the fridge.

I'm certainly glad you're not my doctor, since your blood work would ask the lab techs to perform infinite pricks at every location of the body.
Consider me like House. I'm a jerk, but I will find out what your medical problem actually is. Instead of doing the wrong treatment and getting you killed, which as I pointed out with attempts to clean up pollution in the 70's, may have happened with climate change already.

Sure, but they'd be heavily mitigated by that point; you must also show good use of statistics. Find the natural level of substances in the air - by averages if we must - and make it so cleanup doesn't occur below those levels.
We will never know what those levels are, because the human race didn't have the ability to measure until well after the Industrial Revolution screwed those natural levels all to crap.

I understand it's a common act to misread what someone says(especially in politics where our human biases like to simplify it and assume what the person's argument is), but I never said we did better before factories. I said we did just fine in terms of environment before factories
I know. I understood you perfectly. And my reply remains the same. We cannot go back to where we were in terms of environment. Because that means giving up things we cannot bear to live without. Just by reading this post, you're generating 20 grams of CO2 per second. I don't see you shutting off that PC and throwing it away, do I? And here's the fun part (i.e. most annoying for you): if you reply to this, or indeed if you ever post anything in here again, the act of doing so shows me and everybody else that you still have that PC, thereby proving me right.

:king:

This means if we can keep the current factories but make their emissions near-zero, wonderful! Clean industry.
In theory: absolutely. In practice: you might want to smack China around a bit, because they're dragging us in the wrong direction. How do you force a nation such as China to switch to clean industry?? There's no way to do it.


As you went around your volcano mistake?
Me? Mistake?? This is BasketCase you're talking to. Unless I made a typo somewhere, claiming that I made a msitake is a mistake.

Here's one mistake somebody else made, though: during my research I found a claim that a volcanic eruption can spew as much CO2 as the entire human race generates in a DECADE. That one was definitely bogus. Anyway, here's where you went wrong: I said one volcano spews a hell of a lot (actually, CAN spew a hell of a lot). You listed total annual emissions by all eruptions. Different thing. One volcanic eruption can spew a hell of a lot of CO2--but such eruptions are rare.
 
We will never know what those levels are, because the human race didn't have the ability to measure until well after the Industrial Revolution screwed those natural levels all to crap.

We have a bunch of ways to see what atmospheric conditions were like in the past, like, oh, ice cores.

Me? Mistake?? This is BasketCase you're talking to. Unless I made a typo somewhere, claiming that I made a msitake is a mistake.

I suppose that telling someone who refuses to ever admit they're wrong has made a mistake is a mistake in the sense that there's no point at all in doing so.
 
Ice cores aren't that accurate.

And, no. Now, telling somebody they've made a mistake when they have NOT made a mistake--that's a mistake.
 
Me? Mistake?? This is BasketCase you're talking to. Unless I made a typo somewhere, claiming that I made a msitake is a mistake.

Here's one mistake somebody else made, though: during my googling for sources which support me I ended up in one of those denier sites where I found a claim that a volcanic eruption can spew as much CO2 as the entire human race generates in a DECADE. That one was definitely bogus. Anyway, here's where you went wrong: I said one volcano spews a hell of a lot (actually, CAN spew a hell of a lot). You listed total annual emissions by all eruptions. Different thing. One volcanic eruption can spew a hell of a lot of CO2--but such eruptions are rare.
Dear Basketcase, please point out the word "can" in your statement

"ONE volcano spews as much carbon dioxide as the entire human race does in a YEAR."

This is a general statement. Either you specify, you write "can" in it or you admit your mistake. In the context of the argument, it's pretty damn plain what you were arguing.

Also "during my research" :lol: I fixed that for you :)

http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm
The solid Earth contains a huge quantity of carbon, far more than scientists estimate is present in the atmosphere or oceans. As an important part of the global carbon cycle, some of this carbon is slowly released from the rocks in the form of carbon dioxide, through vents at volcanoes and hot springs. Published reviews of the scientific literature by Moerner and Etiope (2002) and Kerrick (2001) report a minimum-maximum range of emission of 65 to 319 million tonnes of CO2 per year. Counter claims that volcanoes, especially submarine volcanoes, produce vastly greater amounts of CO2 than these estimates are not supported by any papers published by the scientists who study the subject.
as you might notice, 319 million tonnes is just below 26.8 billion tonnes. No Baskie, you thought you'd "trivia" a popular myth and now you're trying to weasel your way out of it. And you're not convincing anyone.

If I know you, you'll reply with another crappy cop-out since it's your modus operandus, so I'll give you a break and let you have the last say. I hope you'll convince at least yourself :)
I suppose that telling someone who refuses to ever admit they're wrong has made a mistake is a mistake in the sense that there's no point at all in doing so.
You've got a point.

But it's not like I expected mr-look-at-me-I'm-always-right to admit anything. It just has been a kind of a guilty pleasure for me to show such people where they went wrong and then watch them squirm and try to cop out of their statements. Life is so much easier when you're able to say: "Darn, that was stupid of me, my bad". I loved arguing with him about how scientists predicted a cooling trend in 1970. Although he was clearly wrong, he just kept wriggling and wriggling. Life's little pleasures.
 
Loaded question. That's not what I said. We don't need perfect measurements, we just need much more accuracy than we've currently got. And I'll tell you exactly what we do need that will make me happy: lots more measuring stations, maybe a couple thousand, spaced evenly all over the planet. In cities and in suburbs and in the wild. Over land and over water. High up and down low. And underwater. So that we can see, with reasonable accuracy, where CO2 is coming from and where it's going.
All I'm seeing here is gut feeling, and not enough statistics or even cogent reasoning as to why we need thousands instead of hundreds of measuring stations. You're like those people who argue for early mammograms and just ignore the radiation and monetary cost.

Side note: practically the moment I typed that, I found a claim somewhere on the Internet that CO2 is a fast-mixing gas. Making it (supposedly) very difficult to tell where high CO2 levels are coming from. I threw that claim away, because it makes the problem untestable. Gremlin in the fridge.
Oh, a claim on the Internet. How nice. A journal article?

Side Consider me like House. I'm a jerk, but I will find out what your medical problem actually is. Instead of doing the wrong treatment and getting you killed, which as I pointed out with attempts to clean up pollution in the 70's, may have happened with climate change already.
I'm sure the blood-drawing you require for a valid conclusion will kill any person.

Here's one mistake somebody else made, though: during my research I found a claim that a volcanic eruption can spew as much CO2 as the entire human race generates in a DECADE. That one was definitely bogus. Anyway, here's where you went wrong: I said one volcano spews a hell of a lot (actually, CAN spew a hell of a lot). You listed total annual emissions by all eruptions. Different thing. One volcanic eruption can spew a hell of a lot of CO2--but such eruptions are rare.

Oh, those eruptions that occur every FEW HUNDRED YEARS? Way to miss the forest for the trees.

Ice cores aren't that accurate.

"Because I say so."
 
Either you specify, you write "can" in it or you admit your mistake.
Third option: I give you a /facepalm for nitpicking.

facepalm2.png


Edit: Oops. I forgot to debunk something. Ziggy posted two sources that summed up total annual volcanic emissions of CO2. Both of which are wrong, and here's why: total annual volcanic emissions of CO2 are unknown because there are a whole lot of sources of volcanic activity we're not watching. That's why I want lots of measuring points underwater: because there's a whole lot of activity--especially along fault lines--that we can't see.

Re-iteration. Volcanoes emit gigantic amounts of CO2. And, actually, gigantic amounts of other greenhouse gases as well. They're just rare.

All I'm seeing here is gut feeling, and not enough statistics or even cogent reasoning as to why we need thousands instead of hundreds of measuring stations.
You're not seeing it because you're not reading my posts. I already explained why. I'm not gonna spell it out for you again.

Oh, a claim on the Internet. How nice. A journal article?
And I said very clearly that I ignored that claim.

READ the WORDS, people.
 
Side note: practically the moment I typed that, I found a claim somewhere on the Internet that CO2 is a fast-mixing gas. Making it (supposedly) very difficult to tell where high CO2 levels are coming from. I threw that claim away, because it makes the problem untestable. Gremlin in the fridge.

Well they were wrong - or, your (mis?)interpretation of their statement makes it wrong. Picture courtesy of NASA:

403502main_portalPollutionMedium.jpg


http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/AIRSCO2.html writes:
Dark blue corresponds to a concentration of 382 parts per million and dark red corresponds to a concentration of almost 390 parts per million.

The northern hemisphere mid-latitude jet stream effectively sets the northern limit of enhanced carbon dioxide. A belt of enhanced carbon dioxide girdles the globe in the southern hemisphere, following the zonal flow of the southern hemisphere mid-latitude jet stream. This belt of carbon dioxide is fed by biogenesis activity in South America (carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere through the respiration and decomposition of vegetation), forest fires in both South America and Central Africa, and clusters of gasification plants in South Africa and power generation plants in south eastern Australia.

It might be hard to tell where CO2 is coming from, but not impossible, therefore not untestable.
 
It might be hard to tell where CO2 is coming from, but not impossible, therefore not untestable.
Fine and dandy. But that's only what we can see with satellites. I don't know what you saw on Star Trek, but even American satellites aren't that good. They can only see whatever radiation leaves the atmosphere, and they can't see underwater.

Yes, CO2 levels are testable. With accuracy. We can do it, it's just that we're currently not, and we need other tools besides satellites.
 
The last refuge of the die-hard denialist... we don't have perfect information, so let's just ignore what we do have!
We don't have sensors covering every inch of the Earth - and, hey, there are whole parts of the Earth left uncovered, like deep underwater! So, obviously, what information we do have is totally worthless! Let's wait until we have perfect information (like, never), and do nothing until then!

/sarcasm

If a dinosaur-killer asteroid is ever sighted on a collision course with Earth, Basket will be the guy saying: Hey, radar isn't all THAT accurate! We don't know to the inch how big the thing is, and we don't know the exact consequences of the impact - so, let's just ignore it until we have better information!
 
Dear God, I've said it a million times. READ MY GODDAMN POSTS. I'm not a denialist, for Christ's sake, I'm an undecidedist. What the hell is your deal??

And, no. Last time an asteroid was sighted on a possible collision course with Earth, it wasn't me, but the astronomers who said the observations weren't all that accurate. Because they weren't. Read here for the scoop on the latest near-miss. 99942 Apophis looked like it might hit the Earth, and after further observations, the scare went away. Nice going, dude. You tried to be all smart-alecky without even realizing your harebrain scenario has already happened many times.

So, pony up. Let's have the further observations. Forget about actually finding the truth--more observations is the only thing that will shut me up. The billions spent will be entirely worthwhile in order for you guys to get a little peace and quiet in here. :gripe:
 
No, it's pretty clear that you are a denialist/coverupper of Global warming.
 
Why would anyone want to read your posts?

It's like being passed a note from a 5 year old written in crayons. It's amusing for a while until you realise they are a fully grown adult. Now THAT is a facepalm moment.
 
Reading BasketCase's posts makes me think of the other kind of facepalm.

Is there really a good reason to believe we have completely and utterly missed an all-too-important source of CO2 that we would need to setup thousands of measuring stations specifically for the purpose of detecting it, all previous scientific inquiries (chemistry and biology for starters) aside?
 
Why would anyone want to read your posts?
Because I'm just about the only one in here (besides Berzerker) who knows how to really figure the issue out. Probably there are a few others, but right now I just don't feel like re-reading this whole thread in order to find out who deserves cred.

Is there really a good reason to believe we have completely and utterly missed an all-too-important source of CO2
Yes.

No, it's pretty clear that you are a denialist/coverupper of Global warming.
And furthermore. Even if you somehow did manage to convince me global warming is a definite (which you will never accomplish with all this pathetic sniping you guys are doing)? I still wouldn't agitate for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Bjorn Lomborg has the right angle on the problem; it's cheaper, more effective, and less costly to life on Earth to simply fix the problems caused by global warming rather than stop global warming.
 
Dear God, I've said it a million times. READ MY GODDAMN POSTS. I'm not a denialist, for Christ's sake, I'm an undecidedist. What the hell is your deal??

No, you're a denialist. Someone who was undecided wouldn't argue this much that global warming wasn't happening/wasn't human-caused/whatver other position you feel like taking at the moment.

And, no. Last time an asteroid was sighted on a possible collision course with Earth, it wasn't me, but the astronomers who said the observations weren't all that accurate. Because they weren't. Read here for the scoop on the latest near-miss. 99942 Apophis looked like it might hit the Earth, and after further observations, the scare went away. Nice going, dude. You tried to be all smart-alecky without even realizing your harebrain scenario has already happened many times.

True, but we keep finding more information to suggest that yes, there is AGW, while finding new data on the asteroid showed that it wasn't going to hit Earth. If we somehow managed to find some data that contradicted all of that other data we had and suggested AGW wasn't happening or wasn't as serious, we'd revise our model of it.

That's the way science works. You come up with the best explanation for the information you have available, and change it when new information makes that explanation seem wrong. You do not come up with an explanation based on some chance that something is right when other information suggests otherwise. Granted, you'll be wrong a lot, because you didn't know better. A lot of what we currently assume to be fact is probably incorrect, we just don't have the information required to see that it's incorrect. But just because something could be wrong doesn't mean it is wrong.

I still wouldn't agitate for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Bjorn Lomborg has the right angle on the problem; it's cheaper, more effective, and less costly to life on Earth to simply fix the problems caused by global warming rather than stop global warming.

It's also cheaper and more effective to use alternative energy sources that don't emit greenhouse gases.
 
So Basketcase, what evidence would you require to consider AGW more likely to be true than not? I've already stated why the evidence for AGW managed to override my own skeptical tendencies on the matter, but perhaps you have a higher standard, and I'd like to know what it is.

Also, I still don't get why you don't believe that CO2 measurements (from ground-based stations, not satellites) are sufficiently accurate, or why you'd think that a source of CO2 exists that even approaches human-generated output. If you know of something that could qualify, I'd like to hear it, but I can't for the life of me imagine what it could be. As others have stated before, volcanic emissions over the past century can't possibly account for the steady rise in CO2 levels we've seen over that timeframe.

On the policy angle, I don't really know what to think. I tend to be of the opinion that reductions in CO2 emissions should come without measureably impacting the economic well-being of people who depend on energy production (essentially everyone). Policy issues are where I want to see the global warming debate going - the science is hard to dispute, but what we should do, if anything, is much more up in the air, if you'll pardon the pun.

Finally, please ignore the people who sling the "denialist" label around. Name-calling doesn't mean anything, and it's just an annoying distraction from the main issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom