patrick.net

curious2 says

Just preserving this...

It's a keeper.

LeonDurham says

2. The mechanism in which CO2 causes warming is well understood and proven.

Sonce it's well understood show us the model. CO2 goes up by X amount equals Y rise in temp? Please solve for X and Y.

Then show us the empirical evidence to support this model.

LeonDurham says

But, the consequences are so dire if not, is it really something we want to leave up to chance?

This is where global apocalypse believers get wacky. Even if we were to believe your apocalyptic fear mongering, do you really think the Paris accord or any other political agreement is going to end the burning of fossil fuels? If the apocalyptic future is a possibility, the only chance we have is technology innovation to replace cars w something that doesn't burn fossil fuels.

LeonDurham says

OK--how many times does it need to get posted?

At least once. Probably more.

CBOEtrader says

once it's well understood show us the model. CO2 goes up by X amount equals Y rise in temp? Please solve for X and Y.

Then show us the empirical evidence to support this model.

I said the mechanism is well understood. Please pay attention. Obviously it's difficult to model the Earth's ecosystem which is what I addressed in my last point.

CBOEtrader says

This is where global apocalypse believers get wacky. Even if we were to believe your apocalyptic fear mongering, do you really think the Paris accord or any other political agreement is going to end the burning of fossil fuels? If the apocalyptic future is a possibility, the only chance we have is technology innovation to replace cars w something that doesn't burn fossil fuels.

I posted no such apocalyptic fear mongering. I simply stated the obvious--that the consequences of global warming are potentially dire, even if one thinks the probability of said consequences occurring are small.

CBOEtrader says

At least once. Probably more.

Then we should be good. It's been posted at least a half dozen times.

LeonDurham says

I said the mechanism is well understood.

LeonDurham says

Obviously it's difficult to model the Earth's ecosystem

You can't have it both ways.LeonDurham says

I posted no such apocalyptic fear mongering.

LeonDurham says

the consequences of global warming are potentially dire,

If the models are correct, ...

Onvacation says

You can't have it both ways

Of course you can. The mechanism by which CO2 causes the Earth to warm up is well understood. How this extra warming input affects the multitude of other variables in the Earth's ecosystem is not as well understood. Are there other systems in play that dampen the warming input, eg the heat sinks of the oceans? But, when the oceans reach a certain temp will it affect jet streams and cause rapid heating? Much of that is difficult to model. But it doesn't change the fact that the mechanism by which CO2 causes warming is well understood.

Onvacation says

If the models are correct, ...

No, if the models are correct, then the consequences WILL BE dire. I said they are potentially dire because we don't know if the models are correct.

LeonDurham says

No, if the models are correct, then the consequences WILL BE dire. I said they are potentially dire because we don't know if the models are correct

I thought the science was settled.

Malcolm says

I thought the science was settled.

I think you're confusing things. Science is settled on CO2's effect in the atmosphere. The models are obviously just that--models.

LeonDurham says

The models are obviously just that--models.

Just preserving this, too...

curious2 says

Just preserving this, too...

Just curious--why would you feel the need to preserve that?

LeonDurham says

Science is settled on CO2's effect in the atmosphere.

Well, science tells us that CO2 makes plants grow. The more the better for that purpose! Any other effects are theories. Nothing is proven. Unless you’re going to submit models for proof.

LeonDurham says

The models are obviously just that--models.

Whoops...

Quigley says

Well, science tells us that CO2 makes plants grow. The more the better for that purpose! Any other effects are theories. Nothing is proven. Unless you’re going to submit models for proof.

Models aren't proof. Presenting a model is providing a tool that incorporates many variables into simulations to produce probabilities of results when differing scenarios are inputted. Definitely not proof.

CO2 is needed for plant growth. Not sure if it's really true that the more the better, but regardless, you're wrong that any other effects are theories. That is factually incorrect.


Quigley says

LeonDurham says

The models are obviously just that--models.

Whoops.

No whoops at all. Models are a tool that should be utilized and understood.

LeonDurham says

Models aren't proof. Presenting a model is providing a tool that incorporates many variables into simulations to produce probabilities of results when differing scenarios are inputted. Definitely not proof.

Just preserving this, too...

LeonDurham says

you're wrong that any other effects are theories. That is factually incorrect.

Rebutting my argument with a mere statement suggesting that a scientific proof exists without either giving the proof or linking to it is meaningless. Since I can’t seem to find such proof in any of the literature I’ve consumed on the subject, I’ll go on considering the climate change thing a theory and NOT settled science. The fact that you consider something unproven and fairly uncertain to be proven science just proves that you neither understand what science is, nor are humble enough to admit your ignorance.

curious2 says

Just preserving this, too...

Awfully trollish on this thread.

If you have a point, please make it.

Quigley says

Since I can’t seem to find such proof in any of the literature I’ve consumed on the subject, I’ll go on considering the climate change thing a theory and NOT settled science. The fact that you consider something unproven and fairly uncertain to be proven science just proves that you neither understand what science is, nor are humble enough to admit your ignorance

I'll assume that your burden of proof is ridiculously high as such literature exists and is quite easy to find. I can post many links if you're truly interested.

Quigley says

Well, science tells us that CO2 makes plants grow. The more the better for that purpose! Any other effects are theories. Nothing is proven.

Quigley says

he fact that you consider something unproven and fairly uncertain to be proven science just proves that you neither understand what science is, nor are humble enough to admit your ignorance.

Are you serious ? I especially liked this part.

Quigley says

Rebutting my argument with a mere statement

No offense, but what you seem to think are arguments on your part are nothing more than statements.

Models may be inaccurate to some degree, and they may deal in probabilities. Neither of those make them unscientific.

As for your statement that any effects of increasing amounts of C02 in the atmosphere other than benefits to plants are nothing more than theories is grossly misleading but also it doesn't make it unscientific. In the past there a have been many theories that were accepted by scientific communities based on analysis and Math, before they were proven true with empirical evidence. Something being theoretical doesn't mean that it's not true enough to act on. Besides there have been experiments which support the theoretical in this case.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/How-do-we-know-CO2-is-causing-warming.html

curious2 says

LeonDurham says

Models aren't proof. Presenting a model is providing a tool that incorporates many variables into simulations to produce probabilities of results when differing scenarios are inputted. Definitely not proof.

Just preserving this, too...

Yes, this one is a real beaut.

LeonDurham says

Malcolm says

I thought the science was settled.

I think you're confusing things. Science is settled on CO2's effect in the atmosphere. The models are obviously just that--models.

You sound like a science denier.

Questioning that we must tax gasoline across the planet to pay an unelected international billionaires club to save us from dire consequences = you are a slothful mouth breather.

(Did I virtue signal properly. Sorry, new at this.)

marcus says

Models may be inaccurate to some degree, and they may deal in probabilities. Neither of those make them unscientific.

Yup models are just tools. It's the politicians, leftwing fundamentalists, and journalists who are unscientific.

Let's try this cause/effect thought exercise.

Cause: we give $$trillions to an international beaurocracy, who will...

Effect: totes save us from our own sins.

(Ya know cause beaurocracies ALWAYS save the day and benefit the working class. Always)

If you question any word of the above, you are a science denier.

CBOEtrader says

You sound like a science denier.

Questioning that we must tax gasoline across the planet to pay an unelected international billionaires club to save us from dire consequences = you are a slothful mouth breather.

Nope--science deniers are the folks who claim the greenhouse effect (discovered in the mid 1800s) is a myth. Or that there is no evidence of temperature rising. Denying facts.

Malcolm says

Yes, this one is a real beaut.

Troll #2 makes an appearance as well.

It's funny. If one simply quotes and responds to a post, it is duly saved. To quote and not respond is really the height of trollishness.

LeonDurham says

Malcolm says

Yes, this one is a real beaut.

Troll #2 makes an appearance as well.

It's funny. If one simply quotes and responds to a post, it is duly saved. To quote and not respond is really the height of trollishness.

There's not much I can add to some of your insights, so I just read with my mouth agape, as I am sure many others are, including some who are on your side of the topic. In over ten years of my participation on this site, yours are by far the most surreal strings of logic that I have ever read. It is literally like watching someone being told that there is no Easter bunny despite the compelling physical evidence of chocolate eggs that can only be explained by the existence of the Easter bunny.

Malcolm says

There's not much I can add to some of your insights, so I just read with my mouth agape, as I am sure many others are, including some who are on your side of the topic. In over ten years of my participation on this site, yours are by far the most surreal strings of logic that I have ever read. It is literally like watching someone being told that there is no Easter bunny despite the compelling physical evidence of chocolate eggs that can only be explained by the existence of the Easter bunny.

lol--with no examples, of course. No thoughtful response pointing out the error in my logic or even where you disagree with my opinions.

Like I said--trolling. (just reread the part about the Easter Bunny)

LeonDurham says

lol--with no examples, of course. No thoughtful response pointing out the error in my logic or even where you disagree with my opinions.

I have an open challenge to anyone who can show an actual doom and gloom climate change prediction that came true or even just a photograph showing a rise in sea level. For all of the people who believe the way you do, not one has been able to, with a simple old and recent photograph, show any rise in the high water line, yet on my thread relating to this very topic, I have my own and other pictures showing no change on a fixed object.

Your logic is flawed because you concur that the science is settled, yet the models that the science theory you assert as true continue to be wrong with the predictive theory. Your science can't be settled with predictive theory that doesn't correctly predict. Rather than objectively reevaluating and actually learning something, the religious mindset takes over and the desired result becomes a goal to prove instead of a theory to test.

Malcolm says

our logic is flawed because you concur that the science is settled, yet the models that the science theory you assert as true continue to be wrong with the predictive theory. Your science can't be settled with predictive theory that doesn't correctly predict. Rather than objectively reevaluating and actually learning something, the religious mindset takes over and the desired result becomes a goal to prove instead of a theory to test.

You obviously haven't read anything I've written. That is the exact OPPOSITE of what I've been saying.

If you're going to attempt to engage in a constructive discussion, then at least read what I write and understand it.

Malcolm says

Your logic is flawed because you concur that the science is settled, yet the models that the science theory you assert as true continue to be wrong with the predictive theory. Your science can't be settled with predictive theory that doesn't correctly predict. Rather than objectively reevaluating and actually learning something, the religious mindset takes over and the desired result becomes a goal to prove instead of a theory to test.

As an example.

You are basically saying that the existence of gravity isn't "settled science" because one cannot precisely predict where a feather will land when dropped outside.

LeonDurham says

You are basically saying that gravity doesn't exist because one cannot precisely predict where a feather will land when dropped outside.

A bit of a stretch, but yes, even in this example, if you can't correctly predict the outcome, you don't have a full understanding of the subject.

That's what makes it a religion, because it becomes a belief.

Malcolm says

A bit of a stretch, but yes, even in this example, if you can't correctly predict the outcome, you don't have a full understanding of the subject.

Wrong. It means gravity is settled science. But there are many other variables that affect where the feather will land that can be modeled, but all the inputs have variability so the final outcome is a probability curve.

Just like the greenhouse effect is settled science. But its effect on Earth as CO2 increases can only be modeled.

LeonDurham says

You obviously haven't read anything I've written. That is the exact OPPOSITE of what I've been saying

This is called equivocating. This allows a safe space for plausible deniability. If you don't actually believe the science is settled relating to human caused climate change, then it is you who are trolling by asserting that we are all ignorant and wrong about something that you are apparently open to because you say the science for part of it is settled but you aren't so sure about the rest of it. The problem there is that the rest of it is the point of the discussion. The atmosphere obviously holds in heat like a blanket. The effect of CO2 is not understood, ergo bad model result, and more likely it is the amount of water vapor and clouds that determines how much heat is trapped.

Malcolm says

f you don't actually believe the science is settled relating to human caused climate change, then it is you who are trolling by asserting that we are all ignorant and wrong about something that you are apparently open to because you say the science for part of it is settled but you aren't so sure about the rest of it.

Nope. I don't think you read very carefully. The science of the greenhouse effect is settled. It was discovered in the early 1800s and proven in mid 1800s, completely unrelated to and prior to any discussion of the Earth warming. That is not a model.

I've consistently posted that one can argue the validity of the models. Most open minded people who look at all of the agreement in data showing a warming Earth believe that the climate is changing, but like I said earlier--models are models. They are not facts.

LeonDurham says

Nope. I don't think you read very carefully. The science of the greenhouse effect is settled. It was discovered in the early 1800s and proven in mid 1800s, completely unrelated to and prior to any discussion of the Earth warming. That is not a model.

Sorry, but you have just precisely rephrased my point. You are just wanting to alarm for no actual reason. That is precisely what an alarmist is.

Malcolm says

Sorry, but you have just precisely rephrased my point. You are just wanting to alarm for no actual reason. That is precisely what an alarmist is.

Could you please point out where I'm alarming? Pointing out the existence of the greenhouse effect discovered in the 1820s is alarming?

Since you are not digesting what I am telling you let me be clear, with your own words.

CBOEtrader says

I think you're confusing things. Science is settled on CO2's effect in the atmosphere. The models are obviously just that--models.

LeonDurham says

Nope. I don't think you read very carefully. The science of the greenhouse effect is settled. It was discovered in the early 1800s and proven in mid 1800s, completely unrelated to and prior to any discussion of the Earth warming. That is not a model.

Now with my words:

Malcolm says

asserting that we are all ignorant and wrong about something that you are apparently open to because you say the science for part of it is settled but you aren't so sure about the rest of it. The problem there is that the rest of it is the point of the discussion. The atmosphere obviously holds in heat like a blanket. The effect of CO2 is not understood, ergo bad model result, and more likely it is the amount of water vapor and clouds that determines how much heat is trapped.

The reason you think I missed something is because you don't understand the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere because the predictive theory on its relationship to temperature didn't pan out. Therefore I simply go to the main point, the effect of human activity. The reason some of your comments are keepers is because of the bizare logic of admitting that the predictive theories might be flawed, even due to circumstances yet unknown (some consider it settled science), yet you still believe there is an actionable crisis.

That is why some of us are taken aback.

LeonDurham says

Could you please point out where I'm alarming? Pointing out the existence of the greenhouse effect discovered in the 1820s is alarming?

curious2 says

LeonDurham says

The only thing that can argued is how self correcting the Earth's ecosystem is. Maybe it will self correct and stop the temperature rise. But, the consequences are so dire if not, is it really something we want to leave up to chance?

Just preserving this...

Also preserving this.

Good. I think that is a perfectly reasonable statement. No fear mongering.

Malcolm says

Rather than objectively reevaluating and actually learning something, the religious mindset takes over and the desired result becomes a goal to prove instead of a theory to test.

Well said!
Is it a coincidence that many alarmists are atheists that badly need to believe in something?

LeonDurham says

You are basically saying that the existence of gravity isn't "settled science" because one cannot precisely predict where a feather will land when dropped outside.

Newton's law of universal gravitation states that a particle attracts every other particle in the universe with a force which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers.

Is there a law of co2 planet heating?