tacoman25 Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 it's pretty basic stuff taco..they are simply measuring the CO2 concentration of trapped air. I assume you apply the same level of scrutiny to all science observations.. does the burning of gasoline REALLY give off heat???? I am not so sure given the history of science... sure there is always some level of doubt associated with ALL science (maybe the external world doesn't even exist and you are just a brain in a vat being stimulated by electrical inputs) but all you are doing here is feeding the fodder for this lie when what you should be doing is explaining why it is false... now these two will come back and think 'oooooo look taco agrees with me I'm right' when you in fact know better. But like most 'skeptics' you are perfectly happy to let lies go unnoticed, even encouraging them, if it can be used to cast doubt on AGW. I am a realist. That which can be measured and reproduced in the present means a lot more to me than that which is presumed about the past through proxies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeastFromTheEast Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 I am a realist. That which can be measured and reproduced in the present means a lot more to me than that which is presumed about the past through proxies. Heck even in today's age we can't trust the measuring devices. LAF and their suspicious temp readings?.. Thats in a legit city in a modern country like ours, how can you be absolutely sure the forests in Africa, Siberia, and other isolated spots have legit equipment and readings? And as for using proxies for getting data thousands of years old Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 it's pretty basic stuff taco..they are simply measuring the CO2 concentration of trapped air. I assume you apply the same level of scrutiny to all science observations.. does the burning of gasoline REALLY give off heat???? I am not so sure given the history of science... sure there is always some level of doubt associated with ALL science (maybe the external world doesn't even exist and you are just a brain in a vat being stimulated by electrical inputs) but all you are doing here is feeding the fodder for this lie when what you should be doing is explaining why it is false... now these two will come back and think 'oooooo look taco agrees with me I'm right' when you in fact know better. But like most 'skeptics' you are perfectly happy to let lies go unnoticed, even encouraging them, if it can be used to cast doubt on AGW. This I's spot on. Tacoman does this all the time. It's infuriating because you know he knows what he Is doing. In the end he really says nothing more than positive reinforcement for their unfounded beliefs or claims. Eventually they post such ridiculous drivel they leave the board themselves. And the cycle continues . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 This I's spot on. Tacoman does this all the time. It's infuriating because you know he knows what he Is doing. In the end he really says nothing more than positive reinforcement for their unfounded beliefs or claims. Eventually they post such ridiculous drivel they leave the board themselves. And the cycle continues . You want concrete where there is quicksand. Sorry, but that's reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 You want concrete where there is quicksand. Sorry, but that's reality. That is only part of it. And our science is not quicksand. That is a convenient thing to call it when it doesn't fit what you want it to. The science is pretty damn sound. And makes a lot of sense. When we are wrong we change it, when we can tweak it, we tweak it. How is it quicksand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 I am a realist. That which can be measured and reproduced in the present means a lot more to me than that which is presumed about the past through proxies. It is measured and reproduced in the present and it is not a proxy. It is a measurement of the concentration in trapped air bubbles. There are other measurements done in the present as well, such as the changing C12/C13 ratio which prove that we are responsible for the increase in CO2. As usual all you are interested in is manufacturing doubt instead of pointing out the blatant falsehoods being spread. The records of historical CO2 and the overall evidence that humans are responsible for the rise in CO2 are as solid as anything gets in science. If you believe all of science is 'quicksand' why don't I see you going around doubting the evidence the earth is over 4000 years old.. afterall nobody was there to measure it! Oh right... because that is no longer socially or politically acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 It is measured and reproduced in the present and it is not a proxy. It is a measurement of the concentration in trapped air bubbles. There are other measurements done in the present as well, such as the changing C12/C13 ratio which prove that we are responsible for the increase in CO2. As usual all you are interested in is manufacturing doubt instead of pointing out the blatant falsehoods being spread. The records of historical CO2 and the overall evidence that humans are responsible for the rise in CO2 are as solid as anything gets in science. If you believe all of science is 'quicksand' why don't I see you going around doubting the evidence the earth is over 4000 years old.. afterall nobody was there to measure it! Oh right... because that is no longer socially or politically acceptable. This whole endeavor has become the farce of our times. People selectively doubt science on every level if it even remotely supports AGW. We never hear of this reluctance to support science when the subject is devoid of political/ideological/policy ramifications. The Earth is 4.567 billion years old. How do we know this number so precisely? We used to just say 4.6 billion, now it has been refined to a much more precise number. Should we doubt this too? I mean, how can we possibly know such a thing with such precision? Yet here we are. Anyone still want to argue the Earth is 6,000 years old? You bet there are! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 It is measured and reproduced in the present and it is not a proxy. It is a measurement of the concentration in trapped air bubbles. There are other measurements done in the present as well, such as the changing C12/C13 ratio which prove that we are responsible for the increase in CO2. As usual all you are interested in is manufacturing doubt instead of pointing out the blatant falsehoods being spread. The records of historical CO2 and the overall evidence that humans are responsible for the rise in CO2 are as solid as anything gets in science. If you believe all of science is 'quicksand' why don't I see you going around doubting the evidence the earth is over 4000 years old.. afterall nobody was there to measure it! Oh right... because that is no longer socially or politically acceptable. I don't have to "manufacture" anything. Some of you want to assign greater certainty to things than what actually exists. Makes the world seem simpler, but again, not reality. This doesn't just apply to AGW related science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 I don't have to "manufacture" anything. Some of you want to assign greater certainty to things than what actually exists. Makes the world seem simpler, but again, not reality. This doesn't just apply to AGW related science. I'm not exaggerating the certainty in historical CO2 concentration. This is basic simple straightforward science. It is as simple and certain as anything in science. All you are doing is manufacturing doubt where there is none. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gracetoyou Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 I'm not exaggerating the certainty in historical CO2 concentration. This is basic simple straightforward science. It is as simple and certain as anything in science. All you are doing is manufacturing doubt where there is none. Listen, I think what Taco is trying to communicate is that there is too much uncertainty in science because of the element of human error...that is if you look at historical science. Science is always changing, evolving with today's discoveries becoming tomorrows errors. The overconfidence that you're showing in your statement above in reality destroys science. Essentially you leave no room for anything to be challenged. To you everything is cut & dry, x's & o's, but that is a foolish mistake to make. As long as humans are involved the room for error gives a good enough reason to be humble & cautious about any supposed discoveries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Listen, I think what Taco is trying to communicate is that there is too much uncertainty in science because of the element of human error...that is if you look at historical science. Science is always changing, evolving with today's discoveries becoming tomorrows errors. The overconfidence that you're showing in your statement above in reality destroys science. Essentially you leave no room for anything to be challenged. To you everything is cut & dry, x's & o's, but that is a foolish mistake to make. As long as humans are involved the room for error gives a good enough reason to be humble & cautious about any supposed discoveries. Am I too confident that the earth is over 4,000 years old? Fact is you are choosing which areas of science to agree with and disagree with based solely on what you want to be true. The fact is CO2 has never risen above 300ppm in the last 500k years until the industrial revolution.. this is basic straightforward science just like how we know how old earth is. There is absolutely no legitimate doubt on this fact. The only reason for doubt is that you don't want to believe it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Listen, I think what Taco is trying to communicate is that there is too much uncertainty in science because of the element of human error...that is if you look at historical science. Science is always changing, evolving with today's discoveries becoming tomorrows errors. The overconfidence that you're showing in your statement above in reality destroys science. Essentially you leave no room for anything to be challenged. To you everything is cut & dry, x's & o's, but that is a foolish mistake to make. As long as humans are involved the room for error gives a good enough reason to be humble & cautious about any supposed discoveries. The ancient CO2 values from ice cores is as solid as any data. They have been replicated a number times, the process of collecting the ice cores and measuring the CO2 trapped in air bubbles has been audited to ensure that there is no contamination. and the values from different ice cores from different geographic locations correlate closely. This is not a proxy measurement, this is the direct measurement of CO2 in air bubles trapped in glacial ice. Since the analysis only uses up small portions of the ice cores the remaini9ng cores are archived and available for future analyses. If better measurement techniques and equipment are developed then a reanalysis can be done to verify the current results. Anyone who rejects the CO2 record due only to their gut feelings and without any solid reasons is a denialist. You can't claim to believe in science and the scientific method but then reject scientific data. That's as backward as rejecting electricity because you can't see an electron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 I'm not exaggerating the certainty in historical CO2 concentration. This is basic simple straightforward science. It is as simple and certain as anything in science. All you are doing is manufacturing doubt where there is none. If it cannot be confirmed by the scientific method, then there is a certain level of doubt. To state otherwise is not reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 The ancient CO2 values from ice cores is as solid as any data. They have been replicated a number times, the process of collecting the ice cores and measuring the CO2 trapped in air bubbles has been audited to ensure that there is no contamination. and the values from different ice cores from different geographic locations correlate closely. This is not a proxy measurement, this is the direct measurement of CO2 in air bubles trapped in glacial ice. Since the analysis only uses up small portions of the ice cores the remaini9ng cores are archived and available for future analyses. If better measurement techniques and equipment are developed then a reanalysis can be done to verify the current results. Anyone who rejects the CO2 record due only to their gut feelings and without any solid reasons is a denialist. You can't claim to believe in science and the scientific method but then reject scientific data. That's as backward as rejecting electricity because you can't see an electron. If you look back at the history of science, you will find many instances where the approximate age of things has changed...sometimes dramatically. Anytime someone starts citing numbers like "in the last 500,000 years" with certainty, I have to laugh, because they are assuming our current understanding is completely accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 If you look back at the history of science, you will find many instances where the approximate age of things has changed...sometimes dramatically. Anytime someone starts citing numbers like "in the last 500,000 years" with certainty, I have to laugh, because they are assuming our current understanding is completely accurate. If your logic was to dominate science we would never trust any scientific determination. There will always be some doubt. We use the output of science to our advantage because it works, not because it is perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 If it cannot be confirmed by the scientific method, then there is a certain level of doubt. To state otherwise is not reality. What about obtaining and utilizing ice cores does not abide by the scientific method when deducing the level of CO2 in past atmospheres? And since when does the utilization of the scientific method eliminate all doubt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 If it cannot be confirmed by the scientific method, then there is a certain level of doubt. To state otherwise is not reality. The CO2 record has been confirmed by the scientific method. Repeatedly. To state otherwise is not reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 If you look back at the history of science, you will find many instances where the approximate age of things has changed...sometimes dramatically. Anytime someone starts citing numbers like "in the last 500,000 years" with certainty, I have to laugh, because they are assuming our current understanding is completely accurate. To claim that the CO2 record is unreliable because other records may have been unreliable is a logical fallacy. It's just handwaving to dismiss data you don't like. If you have specific points to make about the CO2 record, either the historic record or the paleo record from ice cores, then make them and provide links to your sources. Otherwise, my suggestion is to hush because you're just exhibiting an embarrassing level of ignorance and closed-mindedness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 If your logic was to dominate science we would never trust any scientific determination. There will always be some doubt. We use the output of science to our advantage because it works, not because it is perfect. Science, by necessity, is built on a series of assumptions. If the scientific method is followed properly, those assumptions should be logically solid and usually correct, to one degree or another. However, too often the evolving nature of science (especially in certain fields) is overlooked and hypothesis is stated as fact. I'm not advocating a distrust in science. Instead, I'm insisting that the reality of science (which in large part, is a history of errors leading to better, though still often imperfect understandings) be acknowledged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 To claim that the CO2 record is unreliable because other records may have been unreliable is a logical fallacy. It's just handwaving to dismiss data you don't like. If you have specific points to make about the CO2 record, either the historic record or the paleo record from ice cores, then make them and provide links to your sources. Otherwise, my suggestion is to hush because you're just exhibiting an embarrassing level of ignorance and closed-mindedness. The CO2 samples found in ice cores are not the issue. It's the age of the ice, which is determined mainly from semi-empirical/theoretical models, which use data from ice layers. If you look back at previous ice core dating estimations, you will find they have varied quite a bit - often by thousands of years. The further back in time you go with ice layers, the greater the uncertainty is, due to the rapid changes that can effect ice formation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 The CO2 samples found in ice cores are not the issue. It's the age of the ice, which is determined mainly from semi-empirical/theoretical models, which use data from ice layers. If you look back at previous ice core dating estimations, you will find they have varied quite a bit - often by thousands of years. The further back in time you go with ice layers, the greater the uncertainty is, due to the rapid changes that can effect ice formation. So do you agree that the CO2 values are accurate, and that today's level of 392 ppm is higher than the Earth has experienced in hundreds of thousands years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 When will this charade stop. The mean is now 392.35ppm The max in 2011 was 394.5ppm and the current min is 389.00. Next years Max will be around 397 with 2013 at 400ppm. That willbe big media fodder. The mean is projected to break 400 by 2016 now. With a 3-3.25 ppm/yr rise by 2020. This puts the max at 415-420 ppm by 2020 and 450 by 2030, 500 by 2045. The mean will break 450 by 2033. If humans double there carbon dumping then add more to this. It's hard to believe done think it's natural when The max was 360 in 1992. And 316 in 1958. In 2011 it is 394.50. Yeah natural sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 So do you agree that the CO2 values are accurate, and that today's level of 392 ppm is higher than the Earth has experienced in hundreds of thousands years? I think it's fairly certain that today's CO2 levels are higher than anything seen in a long time...exactly how long is hard to say, and the signifigance of the amount we are higher is difficult to determine as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 If it cannot be confirmed by the scientific method, then there is a certain level of doubt. To state otherwise is not reality. You don't confirm observations with the scientific method. You confirm theories. Historical CO2 concentration is an observation, not a theory. And technically speaking, theories are corroborated, never confirmed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 You don't confirm observations with the scientific method. You confirm theories. Historical CO2 concentration is an observation, not a theory. And technically speaking, theories are corroborated, never confirmed. If you read what I wrote below that, you would see I was referring to the ice dating, not the CO2 data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted November 18, 2011 Share Posted November 18, 2011 CO2 has stayed below 300ppm for the last 500,000 years... then suddenly it has spiked to 390ppm over the last century right when we start emitting CO2. The probability that these two events would occur simultaneously by chance is less than .001%. If the extreme low probability that this is a coincidence is not enough to prove it to you there are other methods of proving empirically that humans are responsible for the rise in CO2 using the changing isotope ratio. Almost no 'skeptics' deny that the rise in CO2 is due to humans.. the only people that deny this are a very few fringe wackjobs. Most of the self-identified skeptics on this board agree that the rise in CO2 is due to humans. Seeing people post this kind of misinformation with such misplaced conviction is really upsetting to me. The fact that humans are responsible for the rise in CO2 is a basic proven objective truth.. disputing this is no better than disputing 2+2=4. Sounds like its time to plant more trees... By god we aren't going back to preindustrial era CO2 emission. 35 year life spans and starvation world wide... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PottercountyWXobserver Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 Sounds like its time to plant more trees... By god we aren't going back to preindustrial era CO2 emission. 35 year life spans and starvation world wide... This is what it boils down to. Humanity doesn't want to give up their better lifestyle their ancestors would have killed for. The thing is it doesn't have to be this way but a compromise is in order. Society needs to end consumption of fossil fuels period and rely on alternative sources for fuels whether we like it or not. There is a slight problem with this though and I believe it is the main reason for delaying the CO2 emissions. 1. Where is society going to obtain all the energy necessary for such a large population on Earth currently? 2. Most of the material we use today come from petroleum products ie. (plastics, rubber, asphalt for transportation and construction, cosmetics, and a bunch of other things) For those that live in colder climates love the heat from their houses, but what other source is going to generate enough heat to survive? wood and fossil fuels do the job but are a problem, but will solar and wind be enough at current technological advancements. What if those areas experience low solar and low wind? Hydraulic sources have been just about 100% tapped so we can't really expand here with current technology. Nuclear? even that has its problems and wastes. I'm all for cutting CO2 emissions but the problem isn't so clear cut and easily resolved. As long as the human population is 6 Billion + we are always going to have problems with CO2 because you still need tons of energy, food, resources, and material in general. Concrete is always going to cause urban heat islands because what other building material could you use, same goes for transportation? Humans are always going to generate waste to a certain extent. AGW is a very complicated subject because society doesn't want to change lifestyle because everyone is to comfortable. Technology has to continue to advance to solve for the energy crisis along with the food/water/resource crisis. It is never going to go away with an advancing global population and it gets even worse when other global 3rd and 2nd world populations want the same lifestyle as industrialized countries. These crisis are very troubling and humanity needs to start addressing them a little faster than what we are doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 If you look back at the history of science, you will find many instances where the approximate age of things has changed...sometimes dramatically. Anytime someone starts citing numbers like "in the last 500,000 years" with certainty, I have to laugh, because they are assuming our current understanding is completely accurate. If you were not feeling well and saw a doctor who determined you had lung cancer what would you do. Get a second opinion? Probably. Now go out and get a total of ten opinions and one of them told you you there was no cancer. How would you react? Now, of the nine doctors who told you that you do have cancer, one of them informed you of this treatment in Mexico which was curring 90% of those afflicted with your type of cancer. What would you do? We don't exist in a world of certainty. Even our best scientific determinations carry some degree of uncertainty, even if it is vanishingly small. We make decisions based on the apparent odds, not because we are certain. We are never 100% certain and if we believe we are then we are only deluding ourselves, deceived by very high likelihood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 If you read what I wrote below that, you would see I was referring to the ice dating, not the CO2 data. Radioactive dating is as accurate a clock as you will ever find, and even that is based in probability. The question is, how accurately can we read the clock? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 If you were not feeling well and saw a doctor who determined you had lung cancer what would you do. Get a second opinion? Probably. Now go out and get a total of ten opinions and one of them told you you there was no cancer. How would you react? Now, of the nine doctors who told you that you do have cancer, one of them informed you of this treatment in Mexico which was curring 90% of those afflicted with your type of cancer. What would you do? We don't exist in a world of certainty. Even our best scientific determinations carry some degree of uncertainty, even if it is vanishingly small. We make decisions based on the apparent odds, not because we are certain. We are <b>never</b> 100% certain and if we believe we are then we are only deluding ourselves, deceived by very high likelihood. Bad comparison. You are comparing a terminal disease to 1c rise in temps over a 100 year period. This is more like a case of psoriosis. Sent from my PG86100 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.