Great Take On Global Warming

[Freshwaterau 0]

I really used to be a strong global warming advocate, but when people put reason to paper it sure makes me doubthttp://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htmThis guy makes a great argument(and backs it up with sources etc.)their are definatly sources that show that global warming could be happening as a product of man, but you could just as easily go the other way, and that's the point. Showing that we are responsible for global warming has so many variables and would be so hard to predict that it's just hard to believe it's as dire as they say....

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Here's the main point for those too lazy to click a link:To infer a connection between man emissions of CO2 and warming is not an easy jump for the scientifically minded * First, you have to prove that the increase in CO2 is caused by humans - the venting of CO2 by volcanoes (including those under the ocean) and geysers and other natural sources (and also the natural absorption or sinking of CO2) is a estimate that defies error analysis. To what error band are we certain of the amount of emission of CO2 by natural causes? * Second, the elevation of CO2 needs to be shown to be historically real, but there were no analytical tools to measure even crudely thousands of years ago - the best work has been done with ice samples, but there is a great problem with how to calibrate such measurements. What size should the error bands be? I believe that man is likely responsible for a small increase in CO2 - this a my belief, supported by a lot of data. * Third, there has to be a hypothesis that can predict the past (only then can we start guessing about the future) including the temperatures in the upper atmosphere. Any model that can't fit past data has to be called wrong. * Fourth, as this is an open system where we can't build several earths and vary only one constant, any conclusion at best is still just a theory - a educated guess - it is not scientific fact. Science is more than looking scientific; just because things are measured to several decimal points means naught when there is no control or false logic. * Fifth, to look at the past temperatures honestly, one would have to show no past periods of higher temperature. (This paper pokes a big hole in that one.) The idea that we 'know' the inferred data - is simply wrong. We don't have accurate records of solar output from the past and we don't know the magnitude of long term historic variations that are possible. Explaining the small drift (less than what appears to be the noise in the system) is much better accomplished with a solar output theory - yet even this theory fails to be more than a theory for those who seeking the truth.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

* First, you have to prove that the increase in CO2 is caused by humans - the venting of CO2 by volcanoes (including those under the ocean) and geysers and other natural sources (and also the natural absorption or sinking of CO2) is a estimate that defies error analysis. To what error band are we certain of the amount of emission of CO2 by natural causes?Okay, easy. One need only look at the history of C02 in our atmosphere, consider when humans started pouring C02 (and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere), and make an easy conclusion.I'd say it's pretty obvious that man is the cause of C02.Next* Second, the elevation of CO2 needs to be shown to be historically real, but there were no analytical tools to measure even crudely thousands of years ago - the best work has been done with ice samples, but there is a great problem with how to calibrate such measurements. What size should the error bands be? I believe that man is likely responsible for a small increase in CO2 - this a my belief, supported by a lot of data.Wrong. Ice measurements work very well. They are corroborated by many other ice measurements. They are also supported by other methods, including measuring the levels of certain phytoplankton in the sea bed fossil layers. The relative levels of certain types of plankton can be used to determine the levels of C02 in the ocean and in the atmosphere. Really, this data is quite good and not to difficult to obtain.* Third, there has to be a hypothesis that can predict the past (only then can we start guessing about the future) including the temperatures in the upper atmosphere. Any model that can't fit past data has to be called wrong.There are many models which can match past data. Let's check one example out:There are many models which attempt to fit data using various assumptions.* Fourth, as this is an open system where we can't build several earths and vary only one constant, any conclusion at best is still just a theory - a educated guess - it is not scientific fact. Science is more than looking scientific; just because things are measured to several decimal points means naught when there is no control or false logic.I'm not sure how to respond to this one. It isn't a point, really. * Fifth, to look at the past temperatures honestly, one would have to show no past periods of higher temperature. (This paper pokes a big hole in that one.) The idea that we 'know' the inferred data - is simply wrong. We don't have accurate records of solar output from the past and we don't know the magnitude of long term historic variations that are possible. Explaining the small drift (less than what appears to be the noise in the system) is much better accomplished with a solar output theory - yet even this theory fails to be more than a theory for those who seeking the truth.These pictures are prettier of the earlier ones (and of course are courtesy of the IPCC website). I'd say they sort of stand for themselves.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

As a final point, I'm not sure exactly who this person is or why he believes himself to be such an authority on the subject. But does he really think that he's the only person, of all the relevant scientists, who thought along these lines? Of course scientists understand that these points must be addressed, and have addressed them again and again. Does he really think that his statements are original or haven't been considered by others before. Why are people so untrusting of the world's scientists, and why are people so trusting of any Joe Schmo who has access to the internet?

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Okay, a few more points. At no place in his paper does he actually address the issues that he claims he will address. In fact, he rarely even discusses any evidence at all. His main attacks are against a general body of scientists, and he does this by... I'm not sure really... he sort of described what science was and then jumped to the conclusion that Global Warming wasn't science. His paper is more full of Straw Men then.... I don't know.... a place with many straw men. You get the point.But on top of his lacking evidence or real discussion, the part that really made me mad on a personal level was when he alluded to Richard Feynmann. Please, don't drag my hero Feynmann down into the mud with you!

[DonJ 0]

Superb rebuttal Yorke. Tyvm for the great graphs and argument. Succinctly to the point.