|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 25, 2009 11:28 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| thecount wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Finally, even insofar as some part of climate change could be ascribed to long term cloud changes associated with the PDOI and SOI, one cannot exclude the possibility that those changes are driven by the warming � in other words a feedback |
That�s their defense? �One cannot exclude the possibility...?� |
You're looking for "proof" of global warming theory? Proof only exists in mathematics. In science we rely on the probability indicated by several lines of evidence.
| Quote: |
| "My findings do not agree with the climate models that conventionally thought that greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, are the major culprits for the global warming seen in the late 20th century," Lu said. "Instead, the observed data show that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays most likely caused both the Antarctic ozone hole and global warming." |
So then the warming is still human-caused. Sunrays have always been, CFC's and the ozone hole are new.
| Quote: |
In his research, Lu discovers that while there was global warming from 1950 to 2000, there has been global cooling since 2002. |
If the globe is now cooling then how do you explain the rapidly shrinking sea ice of the northern pole? The northwest passage is almost open for the first time in recorded history.
If the above is true, then the past 9 years would have seen a restoration of arctic ice back to its normal extent, frozen tundra (instead of thawing permafrost bubbling up vast amounts of methane) and later springs, not earlier. Your assertions just do not bear up to observable fact. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 1:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| thecount wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Finally, even insofar as some part of climate change could be ascribed to long term cloud changes associated with the PDOI and SOI, one cannot exclude the possibility that those changes are driven by the warming � in other words a feedback |
That�s their defense? �One cannot exclude the possibility...?� |
You're looking for "proof" of global warming theory? Proof only exists in mathematics. In science we rely on the probability indicated by several lines of evidence. |
Exactly. This makes me wish that arts students were forced to do a basic foundation course in science, before they embarked on the rest of their education. And officially climate scientists don't say that global warming is man-made - they say that it is likely that global warming is man-made. They are also finding that the evidence for this is hardening.
| Junior wrote: |
| Quote: |
In his research, Lu discovers that while there was global warming from 1950 to 2000, there has been global cooling since 2002. |
If the globe is now cooling then how do you explain the rapidly shrinking sea ice of the northern pole? The northwest passage is almost open for the first time in recorded history.
If the above is true, then the past 9 years would have seen a restoration of arctic ice back to its normal extent, frozen tundra (instead of thawing permafrost bubbling up vast amounts of methane) and later springs, not earlier. Your assertions just do not bear up to observable fact. |
Yes, I'd like to see how Lu has come to that conclusion - because it doesn't quite gel with this inconvenient tidbit:
1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006 and 2007 have been found to be the warmest years on record since we first started recording temperatures in the mid 19th century.
I know how some people are buying this as global cooling though - 1998 was the second hottest year EVER - and so it seems to some that (with the exception of 2005 - the hottest year) it must be cooling - as most years were not as hot as 1998, and 2008 was not as warm as 2007. But this is very simplistic - people convinced by this that global warming is in reverse are most likely not used to looking at graphs and making out trends and don't understand that global warming is not a simple linear progression. If you look only at the last 10 years, you might think that global cooling is taking place, because it would appear that the curve of the graph is starting to dip again. But if you look at a much longer window of time, you'll see a very different picture.
Also, if it were found that global cooling were now taking place, or about to take place - it wouldn't mean there is not a long term trend of global warming. It is not a perfect linear progession - the climate continues to vary.
EDIT:
Just found a good website with some good simple explanations for lay people.
http://www.ucar.edu/news/features/climatechange/faqs.jsp#globalwarming
Here is one question and the response:
| Quote: |
Hasn't Earth been cooling since 1998?
Thanks in large part to the record-setting El Ni�o of 1997�98, the year 1998 was the warmest year globally in the 20th century. Since 2001 the global trend has been relatively flat, and 2008 was the coolest year so far this decade (see graph at left). However, a simple calculation shows that global temperatures continue to run much warmer now than in the past: the average from 1999�2008 exceeds the average from 1989�1998, even though the latter period includes the record-warm 1998.
Although scientists are confident that global temperatures will rise further in the coming decades, there could still be occasional "pauses" in warming that last a few years, like the one we're seeing now.
Some of the contributing factors to these breaks in warming could include erupting volcanoes that spew sunlight-blocking ash skyward, a lack of El Ni�o events, and/or the natural minimum in the 11-year solar cycle. Since we are now emerging from the most recent solar minimum, and an El Ni�o is developing in 2009, there's good reason to believe global temperatures will climb significantly as the 2010s approach. |
And this is accompanied by a graph:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2008/ann/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif
Last edited by Big_Bird on Sat Dec 26, 2009 5:45 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 1:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| jmuns wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| And the silence is deafening... |
can i get a link to prove this? |
Been 4 days since I posted the links and not a single nibble. |
It's Xmas - most people are spending the holidays with family - not sitting like losers on an obscure message board. Get a life, luv. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thecount
Joined: 10 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 1:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
You're looking for "proof" of global warming theory? Proof only exists in mathematics. In science we rely on the probability indicated by several lines of evidence.
|
A well-executed, classic semantic dodge. 10/10.
Well, I've introduced several lines of evidence that indicate a high probability that RC is not only biased by YOUR definition, but is intellectually dishonest about it's methods of "disproving" something, including (but not limited to) stifling even authoritative dissent and presenting non-correlated data as a true comparison.
But if you want to go into the semantics of proof, go for it. You'll never be able to "prove" global warming, though.
| Quote: |
So then the warming is still human-caused.
|
So then you change your argument that it was Co2? You can't have it both ways. If tomorrow we were to discover a new element secreted by humans that was responsible for global warming, you could say it was man-caused all you wished, but it would still render a stance holding Co2 solely responsible just as wrong. Would the EPA back out of Co2 regulations? Would people still push for Co2 limits? How entrenched is the community?
| Quote: |
Sunrays have always been, CFC's and the ozone hole are new.
|
That's like saying that Co2 has "always been."
Sun activity has a strong inverse correlation with cloud cover. It does not matter what else is said, that kind of relationship is significant.
Also significant is the systemic dismissal of other theories without examination. Cloud data, for instance, was coded as a uniform input throughout the IPCC's temperature tables...and this is for a massive contributor to temperature! You may call it lazy or you may call it institutional failure, but it cannot be denied that every temperature table that assumes such uniformity is predicating a desired outcome. The only question is at to whether it is an "easier" one or one more in line with a theory.
| Quote: |
If the globe is now cooling then how do you explain the rapidly shrinking sea ice of the northern pole? The northwest passage is almost open for the first time in recorded history.
|
It's all cyclical. Even the AGW people don't attribute that to CO2, but rather a positive feedback mechanism of ice receding into dark water, which absorbs more heat than a reflective white surface, which causes more ice to melt. I could just as easily pick a region -and a much larger one, at that- say, the antarctic, and point out that sea ice levels have been increasing there for the past 20 years. Yet due solely to it's inhospitable climate, almost the entirety of research on it is done by satellite, with trends such as the 2002-2005 GRACE set...a study so short as far as time-scale goes that it's projections are in direct conflict with the 2007 data.
If we can just point at an area experience climate change and say "see?"
Then we've reached a point in the argument where neither side can make any ground. The northwest passage is not the only first, here is a list containing many of the the record colds for this year in America alone. http://www.iceagenow.com/Record_Lows_2009.htm
| Quote: |
If the above is true, then the past 9 years would have seen a restoration of arctic ice back to its normal extent, frozen tundra (instead of thawing permafrost bubbling up vast amounts of methane) and later springs, not earlier. Your assertions just do not bear up to observable fact. |
If all other environmental factors have remained the same and the only variable is continuously increasing Co2 levels, net ice loss and deforestation, why are there temperature gaps at all? Surely the gaps must be influenced by factors...there has to be a CAUSE. With forces of a trend-bucking magnitude in play, it's premature to sign this planet's death warrant based on a theory full of bigger holes than the ozone layer.
How can we walk around proclaiming conclusively that it's co2 when we don't even understand the carbon cycle? When we program our main data sets of rising temperatures to normalize (read: dismiss) other factors?
In all seriousness though, regarding your initial semantic position:
The thread is something along the lines of "how has climate science been disproved."
If we are operating under the assumption that nothing can be proven or disproved in the scientific arena, then why do we have this thread?
I'll be gone for a week in Lima with the GR crew, but I'll be back here on Dave's after then, so reply away. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 10:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| thecount wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Finally, even insofar as some part of climate change could be ascribed to long term cloud changes associated with the PDOI and SOI, one cannot exclude the possibility that those changes are driven by the warming � in other words a feedback |
That�s their defense? �One cannot exclude the possibility...?� |
You're looking for "proof" of global warming theory? Proof only exists in mathematics. In science we rely on the probability indicated by several lines of evidence.
| Quote: |
| "My findings do not agree with the climate models that conventionally thought that greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, are the major culprits for the global warming seen in the late 20th century," Lu said. "Instead, the observed data show that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays most likely caused both the Antarctic ozone hole and global warming." |
So then the warming is still human-caused. Sunrays have always been, CFC's and the ozone hole are new.
| Quote: |
In his research, Lu discovers that while there was global warming from 1950 to 2000, there has been global cooling since 2002. |
If the globe is now cooling then how do you explain the rapidly shrinking sea ice of the northern pole? The northwest passage is almost open for the first time in recorded history.
If the above is true, then the past 9 years would have seen a restoration of arctic ice back to its normal extent, frozen tundra (instead of thawing permafrost bubbling up vast amounts of methane) and later springs, not earlier. Your assertions just do not bear up to observable fact. |
Junior, you have several faulty premises in your logic which explain your confused reasoning.
First of all, there need not be any man-made change to have caused the climate to change. Natural conditions and forces can change and cause climate change. This is possible even if scientists haven't noticed or properly understood the changes.
Second of all, there need not be any change at all to cause climate change. It can, in fact, be the result of ongoing natural processes that were already underway, even if undetected or misunderstood by scientists.
Thirdly, although I do not believe that the world is cooling, at least not yet (eventually we will have another ice-age). The fact is that it would be possible for glaciers and arctic ice cover to shrink at the same time that the world had begun to cool, for a period of many years.
It will more science to determine how much the world is warming, and this will be ongoing as eventually we will find the Earth cooling.
It will take a great deal more science to show what is causing the Earth to warm or cool, and just how much (if at all, or if it is measurable) we are deviating from the normal change that comes from natural processes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 2:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
| Thirdly, although I do not believe that the world is cooling, at least not yet (eventually we will have another ice-age). The fact is that it would be possible for glaciers and arctic ice cover to shrink at the same time that the world had begun to cool, for a period of many years. |
You do understand that we get an ice age roughly about every 100,000 years, don't you? Since our last ice age was only 10,000 years ago, we can probably expect another in about 90,000 years. So don't hold your breath for this ice age you're holding out for. It's not 'just around the corner....' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 2:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| jmuns wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| And the silence is deafening... |
can i get a link to prove this? |
Been 4 days since I posted the links and not a single nibble. |
It's Xmas - most people are spending the holidays with family - not sitting like losers on an obscure message board. Get a life, luv. |
Tell me something. Do you have to work at being a hypocrite or does it come naturally?
If you had looked at the date I posted the above quote it was WEDNESDAY (in America) meaning Thursday over here, meaning a WORK day in Korea. Not Xmas. True I have had no classes for the week, but I am still expected to show up.
On the other hand when we look at the date you posted this it was SATURDAY in America meaning Sunday over here, meaning you were the one sitting like "losers on an obscure messageboard." during Xmas.
So how's getting that life working out for you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Axiom
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 3:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| jmuns wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| And the silence is deafening... |
can i get a link to prove this? |
Been 4 days since I posted the links and not a single nibble. |
It's Xmas - most people are spending the holidays with family - not sitting like losers on an obscure message board. Get a life, luv. |
Tell me something. Do you have to work at being a hypocrite or does it come naturally?
If you had looked at the date I posted the above quote it was WEDNESDAY (in America) meaning Thursday over here, meaning a WORK day in Korea. Not Xmas. True I have had no classes for the week, but I am still expected to show up.
On the other hand when we look at the date you posted this it was SATURDAY in America meaning Sunday over here, meaning you were the one sitting like "losers on an obscure messageboard." during Xmas.
So how's getting that life working out for you? |
In BB's defence TUM, the holy day for the warmist fundamentalists of the green religion is 31st March |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 1:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
First of all, there need not be any man-made change to have caused the climate to change. Natural conditions and forces can change and cause climate change. This is possible even if scientists haven't noticed or properly understood the changes. |
While all that is potentially possible... its only conjecture.
What we have measured and documented are a) The hole in the ozone layer and b) rising CO2 levels.
Both are proven to be human caused, and most scientists agree both are very likely causing warming.
Why try to look for non-existent factors when you have a smoking gun staring you in the face? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
First of all, there need not be any man-made change to have caused the climate to change. Natural conditions and forces can change and cause climate change. This is possible even if scientists haven't noticed or properly understood the changes. |
While all that is potentially possible... its only conjecture.
What we have measured and documented are a) The hole in the ozone layer and b) rising CO2 levels.
Both are proven to be human caused, and most scientists agree both are very likely causing warming.
Why try to look for non-existent factors when you have a smoking gun staring you in the face? |
Here's your smoking gun:
| Quote: |
A man lies dead in the woods.
A smoking gun lies by his side. |
Even with a smoking gun, you have to examine the facts.
We have measured and documented a correlation between sunspots and temperature.
We have a normal rise in temperature due to Earth's normal warming since the last ice age.
We know that rising temperatures will increase the levels of CO2.
We know that the glaciers can continue to recede even if the Earth is cooling.
Examine the facts:
| Quote: |
There is no blood. No bullet holes.
So. How did the man die? |
There are a lot of interesting factors to study. There has never been any proof that we are experiencing AGW nor that we are warming any faster than normal in a period between ice-ages.
| Quote: |
The man died of a heart attack. He fired the gun in a call for help. |
A smoking gun is just one fact.
We have to put all the pieces together before we will have an explanation.
Junior, you need to stop making assumptions and jumping to conclusions without all the facts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 3:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
Here's your smoking gun:
A man lies dead in the woods.
A smoking gun lies by his side.
Even with a smoking gun, you have to examine the facts.
Examine the facts:
There is no blood. No bullet holes.
So. How did the man die? |
The man is lying with the gun in his hand, his fingerprints are all over it, a security camera nearby has captured footage of his self- destruction, and there are a crowd of witnesses. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 10:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
Here's your smoking gun:
A man lies dead in the woods.
A smoking gun lies by his side.
Even with a smoking gun, you have to examine the facts.
Examine the facts:
There is no blood. No bullet holes.
So. How did the man die? |
The man is lying with the gun in his hand, his fingerprints are all over it, a security camera nearby has captured footage of his self- destruction, and there are a crowd of witnesses. |
Well if it was staged to look like suicide, the footage had been tampered with and the witnesses were paid off to say it was suicide...then I'd say that's a pretty fair analogy when it comes to the actions of the pro-AGW crowd. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
You didn't look very far, then. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
