• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Study Shows Rapid Warming On the West Antarctic Ice Sheet

Dezaad said:
You have confirmed my point:

Even if it exists, it is impossible to prove that it exists to your satisfaction. This is inherent in something as dynamic as the climate, and only after its effects are fully felt (and it is too late) would we have successfully 'demonstrated' its reality. And I am here to tell you that your bar for 'proof' is not rational. Here is why:

We as individuals and as a society must forecast the effects of our likely impact on the environment around us. The fact that we can influence that environment to our detriment is indisputable. Since forecasts for dynamic systems are not provable in the sense that you are wanting, we must do a risk assessment. We might be generally warming the atmosphere and causing climate change. Is it likely or not, and to what extent? Climate change might cause terrible economic disruption. Is it likely or not, and to what extent? Mitigating potential man-made climate change through measures now might cause economic disruption. Is it likely or not, and to what extent?

Those are (some of) the factors to the risk assessment, and none of the factors needs to be "proven" in order to make the assessment. Once the assessment is completed, the rational thing to do is to follow the dictates of that assessment. Where does the greatest risk lie?

What you are doing is essentially saying "Well if you can't prove it, there isn't any risk." This is just ignorantly false. The people you have been listening to have been trying to frame the issue as one of proof/not proof. Life just isn't that simple. For example, in business people are nearly constantly making business decisions based on forecasts involving dynamic systems. These forecasts cannot be proven. Nevertheless, the business people who are rational enough to make use of the best information available make the most money. Their acumen is unproven until after the fact, but it is a 'real thing that exists' nevertheless.

The evidence for a man-caused warming biosphere and consequent climate change is exceedingly abundant, but it is not proven in the sense that you desire, and again couldn't be even if it turned out to be true.

This is the reason some of us ask "What would 'prove it' to you?" It isn't a trap, it is just an effort to see where you are coming from, and address the issue on something closer to your own terms.
Click to expand...



If there is proof, you should be able to present it as well as talk about presenting it.

As a for instance, the globe seems to have warmed about 0.4 degrees from about the year 0 to about the year 1000. From 1000 to 2000, about 0.3 degrees. This seems more like a slowing rate than a warming rate. In any event, warming of0.7 degrees over a span of 2000 years does not seem like runaway warming to me. It seems more like astonishing stability.

The globe seems to have warmed about 0.4 degrees between 1600 and 1800 and about 0.4 degrees between 1800 and 2000.

If you are an Anthropogenic Global Warming proponent, this should concern you in your assertion since the warming pre-indusctrial is about the same as the warming post industrial. This is true of the 2 centuries that follow industrialization and the 2 centuries that precede industrialization. It is also true of the millennium that preceded industrialization and the one that was concluded by industrialization.

It is pretty certain that during the Holocene period we have been both about a degree warmer than now and a degree cooler than now.

This is what the best science tells us.

Also, during the spotty instrument record period from 1880 forward, the climate seems to have stalled for about 40 years, warmed for 20, stalled for 40 and warmed for 20. If there is a general warming cycle that is occurring, one might suppose that when the time for a warming stall came around again, the temperature rise would stall. If one was given to the assertion that CO2 is the prime driver of climate, he would dismiss this knowing that the Prime driver, CO2, would force continued temperature rise.

We find, though, that the temperature has stalled again, right on schedule, after 20 years of increase. Go figure.

This is not evidence of a lack of influence by man or evidence of influence by man. In truth, though, it seems like the climate system does pretty much what it wants to do and the influence of man is pretty much ignored by the climate. This is what the temperature record reveals to us. That the climate has warmed at about the same rate with or without industrialization since about the year 0.

Present proof that I'm wrong.
 
Last edited:
zgoldsmith23 said:
The link I posted made a prediction and the result was actually found to be greater than the predicted estimate.
Click to expand...



I was hoping for a prediction from the field of AGW Science.
 
Manc Skipper said:
That you have severe comprehension problems? Yes.
Click to expand...



That the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is political and not scientific.

One might suppose that if this was a scientific organization, it might have science in the name. One might also suppose that if this was a governmental organization, it might have government in its name.
 
OscarB63 said:
previously linked and ignored. I won't waste both our time doing so again
Click to expand...

I believe you linked to a news website but have you bothered to read the scientific study that provides some explanation for the "rapid ice growth"?

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/toascj/articles/V006/111TOASCJ.pdf

It is a decent example of just why "climate change" is used in place of global warming. Far too many apparently can't grasp the concept that while a region of the earth is cooler than average the entire world can still be getting warmer. Ever heard of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation?
 
Somerville said:
It is a decent example of just why "climate change" is used in place of global warming.
Click to expand...

yes, because they realized the data didn't back up their "sky is falling" predictions of global warming so they changed the name. climate has been changing for as long as the earth has had an atmosphere
 
OscarB63 said:
yes, because they realized the data didn't back up their "sky is falling" predictions of global warming so they changed the name. climate has been changing for as long as the earth has had an atmosphere
Click to expand...

That is truly pathetic and apparently an unsaid admission that you have not read the study nor do you understand the implications of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
 
OscarB63 said:
and yet fishermen in alaska can't get out due to record ice growth.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your opinion. I'll go with the peer-reviewed science I referenced above:

"[1] From 1953 to 2006, Arctic sea ice extent at the end of the melt season in September has declined sharply. All models participating in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC AR4) show declining Arctic ice cover over this period. However, depending on the time window for analysis, none or very few individual model simulations show trends comparable to observations. If the multi-model ensemble mean time series provides a true representation of forced change by greenhouse gas (GHG) loading, 33–38% of the observed September trend from 1953–2006 is externally forced, growing to 47–57% from 1979–2006. Given evidence that as a group, the models underestimate the GHG response, the externally forced component may be larger. While both observed and modeled Antarctic winter trends are small, comparisons for summer are confounded by generally poor model performance."
 
Somerville said:
That is truly pathetic and apparently an unsaid admission that you have not read the study nor do you understand the implications of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
Click to expand...

da sky is falling, da sky is falling. yeah, i'd take thier studies much more seriously if not for the fact that every other year some whistle blower comes forward with proof that they cooked the books or none of their doom and gloom predicitons ever pan out.
 
Catawba said:
Thanks for your opinion. I'll go with the peer-reviewed science I referenced above:

"[1] From 1953 to 2006, Arctic sea ice extent at the end of the melt season in September has declined sharply. All models participating in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC AR4) show declining Arctic ice cover over this period. However, depending on the time window for analysis, none or very few individual model simulations show trends comparable to observations. If the multi-model ensemble mean time series provides a true representation of forced change by greenhouse gas (GHG) loading, 33–38% of the observed September trend from 1953–2006 is externally forced, growing to 47–57% from 1979–2006. Given evidence that as a group, the models underestimate the GHG response, the externally forced component may be larger. While both observed and modeled Antarctic winter trends are small, comparisons for summer are confounded by generally poor model performance."
Click to expand...

yeah, i'll take something you say seriously if you ever demonstrate the ability to understand basic math
 
code1211 said:
If there is proof, you should be able to present it as well as talk about presenting it.

As a for instance, the globe seems to have warmed about 0.4 degrees from about the year 0 to about the year 1000. From 1000 to 2000, about 0.3 degrees. This seems more like a slowing rate than a warming rate. In any event, warming of0.7 degrees over a span of 2000 years does not seem like runaway warming to me. It seems more like astonishing stability.

The globe seems to have warmed about 0.4 degrees between 1600 and 1800 and about 0.4 degrees between 1800 and 2000.

If you are an Anthropogenic Global Warming proponent, this should concern you in your assertion since the warming pre-indusctrial is about the same as the warming post industrial. This is true of the 2 centuries that follow industrialization and the 2 centuries that precede industrialization. It is also true of the millennium that preceded industrialization and the one that was concluded by industrialization.

It is pretty certain that during the Holocene period we have been both about a degree warmer than now and a degree cooler than now.

This is what the best science tells us.

Also, during the spotty instrument record period from 1880 forward, the climate seems to have stalled for about 40 years, warmed for 20, stalled for 40 and warmed for 20. If there is a general warming cycle that is occurring, one might suppose that when the time for a warming stall came around again, the temperature rise would stall. If one was given to the assertion that CO2 is the prime driver of climate, he would dismiss this knowing that the Prime driver, CO2, would force continued temperature rise.

We find, though, that the temperature has stalled again, right on schedule, after 20 years of increase. Go figure.

This is not evidence of a lack of influence by man or evidence of influence by man. In truth, though, it seems like the climate system does pretty much what it wants to do and the influence of man is pretty much ignored by the climate. This is what the temperature record reveals to us. That the climate has warmed at about the same rate with or without industrialization since about the year 0.

Present proof that I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

There is no point in a discussion until a testable hypothesis can be agreed upon. I have already rejected your hypotheses as arbitrary and/or irrelevant. I could accept your 'facts' and still hold that AGW is real, because I deem your framework to be irrelevant. Without an agreed upon framework, we would just be talking past one another.

It has been indisputably established that C02 traps heat better than many other common atmospheric gasses. So, now, the only two things that matter are
  • whether greenhouse gasses and average global temperature correlate, and how powerfully they do, if they do.
  • whether greenhouse gasses are increasing as a result of the activity of man, and at what rate.


Your framework tells us near to nothing about these matters. Comparing two millenniums when our activity has only produced changes during a fraction of one of them is obviously irrelevant on its face. The fact that you would bring it up, again, is concerning about your personal ability to comprehend these issues. There really is no point in discussing something with a person incapable of the analysis.

I will allow that you might be perfectly capable. In which case, you do know better than to include in your analysis the two millenniums. But, if this is the case, then you are simply trying to play a silly game, and I am not interested in that, either.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
That has to do with AGW.
Click to expand...



What was the prediction of climate change made 30 years ago that was accurate and was based on the almost certainty that the Higgs Boson particle was shown to exist last summer?

I was aware of the research done at CERN that showed a correlation between cosmic rays and the formation of clouds which reduced the temperature of the climate.

What is the impact that the Higgs Boson particle has on climate? Was there a climate prediction made 30 years ago that employed this in the predictive process?
 
Dezaad said:
There is no point in a discussion until a testable hypothesis can be agreed upon. I have already rejected your hypotheses as arbitrary and/or irrelevant. I could accept your 'facts' and still hold that AGW is real, because I deem your framework to be irrelevant. Without an agreed upon framework, we would just be talking past one another.

It has been indisputably established that C02 traps heat better than many other common atmospheric gasses. So, now, the only two things that matter are
  • whether greenhouse gasses and average global temperature correlate, and how powerfully they do, if they do.
  • whether greenhouse gasses are increasing as a result of the activity of man, and at what rate.


Your framework tells us near to nothing about these matters. Comparing two millenniums when our activity has only produced changes during a fraction of one of them is obviously irrelevant on its face. The fact that you would bring it up, again, is concerning about your personal ability to comprehend these issues. There really is no point in discussing something with a person incapable of the analysis.

I will allow that you might be perfectly capable. In which case, you do know better than to include in your analysis the two millenniums. But, if this is the case, then you are simply trying to play a silly game, and I am not interested in that, either.
Click to expand...



And what of the 200 years before and the 200 years after industrialization that show virtually identical rates and amounts of temperature increase?

What effort toward finding a laboratory type test would you accept? If you are saying there is no equivalent in nature from any point in time, then how can you possibly expect to reasonably test your assertion?

If you are proposing an idea that is absolutely not falsifiable, then what you are talking about is not science.

What you are asserting is that this warming we are currently experiencing is dramatic, unprecedented and must absolutely be caused by CO2 emitted by man.

What I have observed from the collected knowledge of science on the topic is that this warming is not dramatic, not unprecedented and seems to act in defiance of CO2, not as an effect. In truth, half of the warming between 1600 and 2000 occurred before industrialization.

If what you assert is correct, there should be evidence in the climate record. If what you assert is not correct, the climate record should look pretty much as it does.

You ask what evidence I am looking for and that evidence is the connection between what you cite as the cause and the demonstrated effects that you predict in the climate record. That cause effect relationship is shaky at best.

If the effects that you cite COULD be caused by a wide number of causes, then the appointment of CO2 as the prime driver seems a little arbitrary.

I am not saying it's impossible that CO2 has an impact. I am not convinced that CO2 is the prime driver. That is what you need to prove. Demonstrate that the cause you cite has consistant effects and that these effects did not occur absent the cause you cite.
 
Last edited:
code1211 said:
What was the prediction of climate change made 30 years ago that was accurate and was based on the almost certainty that the Higgs Boson particle was shown to exist last summer?

I was aware of the research done at CERN that showed a correlation between cosmic rays and the formation of clouds which reduced the temperature of the climate.

What is the impact that the Higgs Boson particle has on climate? Was there a climate prediction made 30 years ago that employed this in the predictive process?
Click to expand...

If you'd read my post, I specified that was a prediction made by science. Let's look at it again:

Myself said:
Well Dr. Peter Higgs predicted this thing called the "Higgs Boson" and there's a high probability it was located in CERN. Does that work? There's a prediction in science. Now, the field of science isn't about what's "useful" - but things have been predicted and been found to be occurring such as this.
Click to expand...

See. Try again.
 
code1211 said:
And what of the 200 years before and the 200 years after industrialization that show virtually identical rates and amounts of temperature increase?

What effort toward finding a laboratory type test would you accept? If you are saying there is no equivalent in nature from any point in time, then how can you possibly expect to reasonably test your assertion?

If you are proposing an idea that is absolutely not falsifiable, then what you are talking about is not science.

What you are asserting is that this warming we are currently experiencing is dramatic, unprecedented and must absolutely be caused by CO2 emitted by man.

What I have observed from the collected knowledge of science on the topic is that this warming is not dramatic, not unprecedented and seems to act in defiance of CO2, not as an effect. In truth, half of the warming between 1600 and 2000 occurred before industrialization.

If what you assert is correct, there should be evidence in the climate record. If what you assert is not correct, the climate record should look pretty much as it does.

You ask what evidence I am looking for and that evidence is the connection between what you cite as the cause and the demonstrated effects that you predict in the climate record. That cause effect relationship is shaky at best.

If the effects that you cite COULD be caused by a wide number of causes, then the appointment of CO2 as the prime driver seems a little arbitrary.

I am not saying it's impossible that CO2 has an impact. I am not convinced that CO2 is the prime driver. That is what you need to prove. Demonstrate that the cause you cite has consistant effects and that these effects did not occur absent the cause you cite.
Click to expand...

I believe that if
  • correlation between C02 levels and global average temperatures can be shown
    -and-
  • mankind's activity can be shown to be increasing C02 levels
Then we know the most reasonable driver is the C02. The evidence for the causation in the correlation is the lab verified fact that C02 retains heat better relative to other atmospheric gasses.

As I said, we can't prove this, but we can say that by far the most reasonable explanation is man-generated average global temperature increase. This becomes part of the risk assessment I spoke of.

If correlation cannot be shown, then causation is called into exceedingly serious question. This would also become part of the risk assessment that I spoke of. I think it would also satisfy your falsifiability requirement.

All that said, your 2000 year period divided into 2 has absolutely zero value regarding the issue of causation, and this is obvious with even the most rudimentary honest thinking.

For the 400 year period, your idea of verifying or falsifying causation is slightly more plausible. However, it is still irrelevant, though this is not necessarily as obvious.

All that matters is whether C02 levels can be shown to track with average global temperature in the long term. If C02 levels decrease over your 400 year period, and average temperature rises, this would be some evidence against C02 as a driver. If C02 levels increase and average temperature decreases, this would be some evidence against C02 as a driver. However, if C02 levels increase, and average temperature increases, this would be some evidence confirming C02 as a driver.

In none of the instances in the last paragraph would the evidence be especially strong. As other people on both sides of the issue have pointed out, there are likely to be other drivers also affecting average global temperature. Either side must account for these other possible drivers. Accounting for these other drivers will strengthen or weaken the evidence for C02 itself being a driver. If temperatures go up, but C02 goes down, (or vice versa) it could be due to radiation levels from the sun. Even if they both go up or down together, it could still be radiation levels from the sun. Either side would have to show stronger correlation or non-correlation in order for the evidence to become irresistible.

The problem with any arbitrary time lengths is this: Take your 400 years. What if C02 levels were falling during the first 250 years and were climbing during the later 150 years? And what if most of that climb were in the last 50 years? What if there is a mechanism the biosphere has which caused the heat trapping effect to lag behind the C02 levels. All of these are reasonable possibilities. But, in the end, all that matters is whether C02 levels track with global average temperatures over the long term. You can pick some arbitrary time length, or even a couple of them, and look at the temperatures at the beginning and the end of those time periods, but the information you get from that will be useless.

You say that rises in temperature should not occur absent a C02 driver. The drivers of global average temperature need not be mutually exclusive. If an additional N ppm of C02 causes M degrees in temperature rise all else being equal, then it does that regardless as to whether an additional amount of radiation from the sun also does that or even has a greater effect. If semi-persistent radiation changes cause temperatures to rise 5 degrees, but that happens over 3000 years, but AGW causes a rise of 3 degrees, but that happens over 200 years, the consequences of the AGW driver are going to be more significant to us. It may be that C02 normally changes much slower than radiation from the sun, but if we are driving C02 changes phenomenally faster than they normally occur, we are going to end up being a significant driver. It just doesn't make sense to speak of 'a primary driver'. Saying it sounds like you could be smart, but on further analysis, it is just smoke and mirrors.

You demonstrate repeatedly that you are not qualified to analyze whether the long term record tracks well or not.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
If you'd read my post, I specified that was a prediction made by science. Let's look at it again:



See. Try again.
Click to expand...



The field to which I referred is Anthropogenic Global Warming Science. I know that science is a very useful tool when applied correctly.

You are being intentionally obtuse.
 
Dezaad said:
I believe that if
  • correlation between C02 levels and global average temperatures can be shown
    -and-
  • mankind's activity can be shown to be increasing C02 levels
Then we know the most reasonable driver is the C02. The evidence for the causation in the correlation is the lab verified fact that C02 retains heat better relative to other atmospheric gasses.

As I said, we can't prove this, but we can say that by far the most reasonable explanation is man-generated average global temperature increase. This becomes part of the risk assessment I spoke of.

If correlation cannot be shown, then causation is called into exceedingly serious question. This would also become part of the risk assessment that I spoke of. I think it would also satisfy your falsifiability requirement.

All that said, your 2000 year period divided into 2 has absolutely zero value regarding the issue of causation, and this is obvious with even the most rudimentary honest thinking.

For the 400 year period, your idea of verifying or falsifying causation is slightly more plausible. However, it is still irrelevant, though this is not necessarily as obvious.

All that matters is whether C02 levels can be shown to track with average global temperature in the long term. If C02 levels decrease over your 400 year period, and average temperature rises, this would be some evidence against C02 as a driver. If C02 levels increase and average temperature decreases, this would be some evidence against C02 as a driver. However, if C02 levels increase, and average temperature increases, this would be some evidence confirming C02 as a driver.

In none of the instances in the last paragraph would the evidence be especially strong. As other people on both sides of the issue have pointed out, there are likely to be other drivers also affecting average global temperature. Either side must account for these other possible drivers. Accounting for these other drivers will strengthen or weaken the evidence for C02 itself being a driver. If temperatures go up, but C02 goes down, (or vice versa) it could be due to radiation levels from the sun. Even if they both go up or down together, it could still be radiation levels from the sun. Either side would have to show stronger correlation or non-correlation in order for the evidence to become irresistible.

The problem with any arbitrary time lengths is this: Take your 400 years. What if C02 levels were falling during the first 250 years and were climbing during the later 150 years? And what if most of that climb were in the last 50 years? What if there is a mechanism the biosphere has which caused the heat trapping effect to lag behind the C02 levels. All of these are reasonable possibilities. But, in the end, all that matters is whether C02 levels track with global average temperatures over the long term. You can pick some arbitrary time length, or even a couple of them, and look at the temperatures at the beginning and the end of those time periods, but the information you get from that will be useless.

You say that rises in temperature should not occur absent a C02 driver. The drivers of global average temperature need not be mutually exclusive. If an additional N ppm of C02 causes M degrees in temperature rise all else being equal, then it does that regardless as to whether an additional amount of radiation from the sun also does that or even has a greater effect. If semi-persistent radiation changes cause temperatures to rise 5 degrees, but that happens over 3000 years, but AGW causes a rise of 3 degrees, but that happens over 200 years, the consequences of the AGW driver are going to be more significant to us. It may be that C02 normally changes much slower than radiation from the sun, but if we are driving C02 changes phenomenally faster than they normally occur, we are going to end up being a significant driver. It just doesn't make sense to speak of 'a primary driver'. Saying it sounds like you could be smart, but on further analysis, it is just smoke and mirrors.

You demonstrate repeatedly that you are not qualified to analyze whether the long term record tracks well or not.
Click to expand...



And you demonstrate that you are in the same place in terms of evidence that I am.

The difference is that when you string together a series of "if's", you conclude that the "if's" suddenly turn into givens. That seems to me to be a leap of faith.

You seem to be saying that if there is no evidence to prove that you are wrong, then you must be right. That is akin to the logic of UFO hunters and Conspiracy buffs.

You still need to demonstrate that the temperature is reacting to CO2, that the reaction is both dramatic and unprecedented. You have not. If you are comfortable in accepting this and holding your belief as a result, that is fine.

I just don't see the need to act in a way that is foolish, spend money on things that are undoubtedly boondoggles and depart from actions that are proven to be beneficial. Even a cursory review of the world reveals that there are more people alive right now living in better conditions than the masses have ever enjoyed in all of history with greater amounts of wealth then ever before and the reason is the use of fossil fuels.
 
code1211 said:
And you demonstrate that you are in the same place in terms of evidence that I am.

The difference is that when you string together a series of "if's", you conclude that the "if's" suddenly turn into givens. That seems to me to be a leap of faith.

You seem to be saying that if there is no evidence to prove that you are wrong, then you must be right. That is akin to the logic of UFO hunters and Conspiracy buffs.

You still need to demonstrate that the temperature is reacting to CO2, that the reaction is both dramatic and unprecedented. You have not. If you are comfortable in accepting this and holding your belief as a result, that is fine.

I just don't see the need to act in a way that is foolish, spend money on things that are undoubtedly boondoggles and depart from actions that are proven to be beneficial. Even a cursory review of the world reveals that there are more people alive right now living in better conditions than the masses have ever enjoyed in all of history with greater amounts of wealth then ever before and the reason is the use of fossil fuels.
Click to expand...

I have done no such thing as claiming that my ifs are givens. I have, in fact been careful to describe how different ifs would be evidence for different sides of the issue. You must have assumed that I was asserting conclusions, but have not asserted a single one, here.

I have only been saying IF, and I meant nothing but IF. We would get around to analyzing the evidence if I thought you were capable of it, and it could conceivably go either way. I think you are not capable of it, so I am not bothering. I will let others argue with you if they want to entertain themselves, but I would think it was boring.
 
Dezaad said:
I have done no such thing as claiming that my ifs are givens. I have, in fact been careful to describe how different ifs would be evidence for different sides of the issue. You must have assumed that I was asserting conclusions, but have not asserted a single one, here.

I have only been saying IF, and I meant nothing but IF. We would get around to analyzing the evidence if I thought you were capable of it, and it could conceivably go either way. I think you are not capable of it, so I am not bothering. I will let others argue with you if they want to entertain themselves, but I would think it was boring.
Click to expand...




That's your option.
 
code1211 said:
The field to which I referred is Anthropogenic Global Warming Science. I know that science is a very useful tool when applied correctly.

You are being intentionally obtuse.
Click to expand...

Did you open the link?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom