Global Warming w/o Tiggy

[shadowmaster]

I read this "reply" to me, and other than to observe that we STILL can't seem to get into the same conversation (we're STILL talking right past each other), words fail me...

-- Frank

It's all in the spelling.

Perhaps you could both agree on Pfrank like in the good old days.

sm

[phank]

Frank,

Maybe it would help if you explained your position, and what it's based on? So far, your posts have consisted of attacks, insults, outright dismissal, and little else. This impedes any useful discussion.

I posted the results of a poll. You have not addressed that poll, or the results. Maybe that would be a good place to start.

[FLovell]

Frank,

Maybe it would help if you explained your position, and what it's based on? So far, your posts have consisted of attacks, insults, outright dismissal, and little else. This impedes any useful discussion.

I posted the results of a poll. You have not addressed that poll, or the results. Maybe that would be a good place to start.

I have explained my position here many, MANY times; the record of all dialogue here remains available to examine; it began LONG beofre you arrived here, but that's OK, of you are really interested you may go back and see, you may go back and see.

Or not. Depend on your interest (or lack thereof).

Nothing I've read since you arrived here in this "Global Worming w/o Tiggy" thread of dialogue gives me any reason to think repeating myself will result in a successful discussion.

-- Frank [A global climate-change/warming Inevitableist]

[phank]

I have explained my position here many, MANY times; the record of all dialogue here remains available to examine; it began LONG beofre you arrived here, but that's OK, of you are really interested you may go back and see, you may go back and see.

Or not. Depend on your interest (or lack thereof).

Nothing I've read since you arrived here in this "Global Worming w/o Tiggy" thread of dialogue gives me any reason to think repeating myself will result in a successful discussion.

-- Frank [A global climate-change/warming Inevitableist]

I posted the results of a poll. You have not addressed that poll, or the results. Maybe that would be a good place to start.

[phank]

You have described JohnMartin quite perfectly.

But I seriously doubt that Tiggy thinks in binary terms. What we have here are many disparate lines of data, most of which are equivocal, plugged into models extremely difficult to validate. After all, we're considering something extremely complex, and any validation is certain to be limited, partial, and tentative. What we do is look for the best-fit explanation, make predictions from that, test the predictions, refine the model. Each model in turn is based on extrapolations and analyses when all of the relevant factors are not known, and those that are known are difficult to assign weights to.

We're back to Asimov's dictum that there are degrees of wrong. Asimov wrote that those who said the world is flat were wrong. Those who said the world is a sphere are ALSO wrong, but much LESS wrong. It's not cognitive dissonance to interpret the data in different ways, leading to different (but tentative and testable) conclusions. I think it IS cognitive dissonance to take complex, multifaceted phenomena and divide interpretations into right and wrong, as opposed to tentatively better or worse, pending further research.

What 97% of climatologists ageed to was extremely general - that human activities play a role in global warming. This level of agreement is only possible when the statement agreed to is broad and general. If you were to ask HOW MUCH contribution humans make, you'd flind plenty of disagreement.

[Challenger Grim]

For those interested (like the model-lover shadowmaster )
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08...first_results/

This has significant implications for climate science because water vapour and clouds play a large role in determining global temperatures. Tiny changes in overall cloud cover can result in relatively large temperature changes.

Unsurprisingly, it's a politically sensitive topic, as it provides support for a "heliocentric" rather than "anthropogenic" approach to climate change: the sun plays a large role in modulating the quantity of cosmic rays reaching the upper atmosphere of the Earth.

CERN's director-general Rolf-Dieter Heuer warned his scientists "to present the results clearly but not interpret them". Readers can judge whether CLOUD's lead physicist Jasper Kirkby has followed his boss's warning.

OMG! It would be amazing how much better this whole CC/AGW/whatever debate would be if every scientist followed Rolf-Dieter Heuer's advice.


For example... http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=4270

[phank]

OMG! It would be amazing how much better this whole CC/AGW/whatever debate would be if every scientist followed Rolf-Dieter Heuer's advice.

I'm reminded of a story told of Darwin. Darwin attended a meeting of the London Geological Society, which was prone to a lot of bickering. And they resolved merely to collect data, and withhold interpretation until they had enough so everything would be clear to everyone. Darwin scoffed at this, and said they might as well go to the nearest quarry and describe every pebble. He said, essentially, that evidence outside of an interpretive framework is meaningless. No piece of evidence MEANS anything, except insofar as it either supports or refutes some interpretation.


In science, interpretation drives hypotheses, which inform research, which answers QUESTIONS, which can only arise from interpretations. Rolf-Dieter Heuer seems to have forgotten that results follow necessarily from interpretations, and every question CERN investigates is done to collect data which either support or refute those interpretations.Without interpretations, results mean nothing, and nobody would have any clue what to research or how to conduct it.

Either this quotation is taken out of context, or Rolf-Dieter Heuer has forgotten how science works.

[Augustine2004]

Phank is correct: Every scientist must start with some interpretive framework--or a body of theories, if you will. The Bible is actually as a good as a start as anything, provided you first interpret it correctly

[phank]

Phank is correct: Every scientist must start with some interpretive framework--or a body of theories, if you will. The Bible is actually as a good as a start as anything, provided you first interpret it correctly

And as it turns out, that's easy. Decide on what you wish to be true, find a bible verse that you can interpret to support you, and viola, the bible has ratified your preference. In some cases, though, getting the bible to agree with scientific findings requires some pretty fancy interpretational footwork.

[newsero]

There are few question in my mind about global warming.
1. What is the greenhouse effect, and is it affecting our climate?


2. Are greenhouse gases increasing?


3. Is the climate warming?


4. Is the atmospheric/oceanic circulation changing?

[phank]

There are few question in my mind about global warming.
1. What is the greenhouse effect, and is it affecting our climate?

The most important change people are causing, at least as currently understood, is to increase the percentage of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. CO2 is a small component of the atmosphere, but it tends to absorb sunlight and not easily radiate it. It's called a greenhouse gas because like a greenhouse, it lets the heat in but keeps it in.

2. Are greenhouse gases increasing?

Yes

3. Is the climate warming?

Yes

4. Is the atmospheric/oceanic circulation changing?

Very hard to tell, since these things are always changing.The best we can do is describe the nature, timing, size, and distribution of such changes relative to such dynamic factors as seasons, insolation, volcanism, and the like. THEN statistically, we can see whether (for instance) the standard deviation of change is increasing.

[shadowmaster]

The most important change people are causing, at least as currently understood, is to increase the percentage of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. CO2 is a small component of the atmosphere, but it tends to absorb sunlight and not easily radiate it. It's called a greenhouse gas because like a greenhouse, it lets the heat in but keeps it in.

There is little or no CO2 in a greenhouse.
The plants absorb it all.
"Greenhouse gas" is a misnomer.

[phank]

There is little or no CO2 in a greenhouse.
The plants absorb it all.
"Greenhouse gas" is a misnomer.

Oh good grief. It's called a greenhouse gas because it causes effects similar to a greenhouse - convert radiant energy to heat, and retain the heat.

[shadowmaster]

Oh good grief. It's called a greenhouse gas because it causes effects similar to a greenhouse - convert radiant energy to heat, and retain the heat.

It is called a greenhouse gas to mislead people.

One must add CO2 to a greenhouse.

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/...cts/00-077.htm

didja know that?

betja didn't

[phank]

It is called a greenhouse gas to mislead people.

Don't be silly. It's called a greenhouse gas because it has a similar effect using a similar mechaism.

One must add CO2 to a greenhouse.

So what? The phrase is metaphorical, intended to communicate an EFFECT. The atmosphere isn't glass either. You might as well argue that vehicles don't have horsepower because they use no physical horses.

Are you being serious, or what?