• Tucker Carlson: Bill Nye the Science guy Interview over Climate Change.
    222 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Pitchfork;51909368]How is the exact precise 100% accurate measurement even relevant?[/QUOTE] The easiest way to attempt to throw out someone's entire argument is to focus on one misrepresented or unknowable bit of information. This is what people do when they can't fight the majority of points presented. This is why Tudd only responds to the weakest arguments in the thread, selectively ignores most of the arguments in the well-argued posts he does respond to, and repeatedly says "what about X" when X has been already determined to be of little consequence. If you hadn't noticed, the whole of fringe-conservative 'arguments' rely on this tactic. [QUOTE=krail9;51909953]doggy already answered this you mongoloid I look forward to your response!!![/QUOTE] You're going to wait a long time.
I know, it was rhetorical.
[QUOTE=Super Muffin;51909438]The easiest way to attempt to throw out someone's entire argument is to focus on one misrepresented or unknowable bit of information. This is what people do when they can't fight the majority of points presented. This is why Tudd only responds to the weakest arguments in the thread, selectively ignores most of the arguments in the well-argued posts he does respond to, and repeatedly says "what about X" when X has been already determined to be of little consequence. If you hadn't noticed, the whole of fringe-conservative 'arguments' rely on this tactic.[/QUOTE] To be clear: you can't claim any specific amount of human caused warming without an equally certain claim about what the temperature would have been without any human caused warming. It plays the same role as a control group.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51909564]To be clear: you can't claim any specific amount of human caused warming without an equally certain claim about what the temperature would have been without any human caused warming. It plays the same role as a control group.[/QUOTE] No, no this isn't how it works. It's not equally likely that we had a massive sudden temperature spike like nothing ever seen before happening for no reason. The correlation between increased CO2 and temperature is strong and we know the mechanism behind it. It'd not difficult to deduce.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51906998]The temperature part is kind of what I been looking for.[/QUOTE] doggy already answered this you mongoloid [QUOTE=DOG-GY;51896001]human offset is everything since then lol (img from nasa) [img]http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/files/2010/05/natural_anthropogenic_models_narrow.png[/img][/QUOTE] the diagram is hosted by NASA but the data and analysis are from Hegerl, G. C., Zwiers, et al. [I]In Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis[/I] (2007) which is freely available [URL="https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_the_physical_science_basis.htm"]here[/URL]. methodology and results of the simulations are clearly explained in chapter 9, page 684 without human influence the average temperature would be about 0.5-1 degree lower, on a downward trend. there's the answer you're asking for. bill nye couldn't say it because believe it or not he can't (and shouldn't be expected to) know the exact data for every asinine question off the top of his head I look forward to your response!!!
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;51909847]No, no this isn't how it works. It's not equally likely that we had a massive sudden temperature spike like nothing ever seen before happening for no reason. The correlation between increased CO2 and temperature is strong and we know the mechanism behind it. It'd not difficult to deduce.[/QUOTE] Also, if it were true that the temperature would have followed the same course anyway, there would be a cause for that too, and with such a dramatic change it wouldn't be hard to find. We often hear the cop-out "I believe humans cause climate change but we don't know how much." If the the human contribution were negligible enough to continue burning fossil fuels safely, then there would especially have to be another visible cause. If you insist on using this argument you can't have it both ways.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;51909847]No, no this isn't how it works. It's not equally likely that we had a massive sudden temperature spike like nothing ever seen before happening for no reason. The correlation between increased CO2 and temperature is strong and we know the mechanism behind it. It'd not difficult to deduce.[/QUOTE] Saying that there is, say, 0.5C of human caused warming is equivalent to saying the temperature would have been 0.5C cooler without human caused warming. I'm simply saying that any claim about human caused warming is inherently a claim of what would have been without that warming.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51910107]Saying that there is, say, 0.5C of human caused warming is equivalent to saying the temperature would have been 0.5C cooler without human caused warming. I'm simply saying that any claim about human caused warming is inherently a claim of what would have been without that warming.[/QUOTE] We know the properties of CO2, we can also measure the CO2 levels and compare them to previous historical levels. It's not hard to figure out how much was caused by human activity unless CO2 just magically spawned out the ether.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51910107]Saying that there is, say, 0.5C of human caused warming is equivalent to saying the temperature would have been 0.5C cooler without human caused warming. I'm simply saying that any claim about human caused warming is inherently a claim of what would have been without that warming.[/QUOTE] I don't understand what more you want to know that's not already provided in this thread.
[QUOTE=OvB;51910407]I don't understand what more you want to know that's not already provided in this thread.[/QUOTE] I'm not asking for more. I was simply clarifying that it doesn't make sense to say that it isn't relevant to ask what the temperature would have been without human warming because it's essentially the same exact question as asking how much human warming there has been.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51906998]The temperature part is kind of what I been looking for. [/QUOTE] So wait, this isn't what you were looking for? [quote]the math for temperature is up to 7 degrees per 5000 years vs 0.7 degrees in 100 years. That's 0,0014 °C/year to 0,007 °C/year. So if we hypothetically were in a naturally warming period and were adding to the effect 0,007°C/year-0,0014°C/year=0,0056. And 0,0056°C/year out of 0,007°C/year is 80%. That is if we were in the naturally warming period and we're not.[/quote] The temperature is raising 0,007 °C/year whereas naturally, best case scenario it would be raising 0,0014 °C/year. So that's five times faster, best (or worst) case scenario. And if we were in the naturally warming period we would be responsible for ~80%. But it's actually much more than that because we're not in the naturally warming period.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.