Final-Fan said: If you don't want to restrict yourself to this small area, that's fine, but don't accuse me of things I'm not attempting. |
I'm not saying you were, I'm saying that this smaller debate is meaningless if C02 is not a driver. There is more to my reasons but I will explain further below.
Final-Fan said:
First the second graph is better but still not to the point in time that the rates and temperatures were at there highest, which again is the data that is needed for meaningful comparison. You can't make the claim that the current situation is abnormal and not look at the other periods this situation has happened in. It would be like trying to find a cure for a disease without examining any samples of that disease...it makes no sense. Just so I'm clear, are you saying that you believe the rate of change of CO2 was greater in these earlier periods? We have no data AFAIK capable of that kind of accuracy going back further than the ice cores, which go back less than 1 million years, which is far less than you want. If we have something that says, "BOOM CO2 went up 1,000 points in 10,000 years" (and that would certainly be an extreme increase!) that's a geological eyeblink but averages out to 0.1 points per year, while the period 1832 to 2007 has seen a rate of 0.57 and 1960-2006 it's been closer to 1.67! ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth%27s_atmosphere ) |
I was referring to temperature shifts, I don't think the C02 debate is meaningful outside of the GW debate by itself. We can discuss the man-made increases of peanut butter production also but if it doesn't have a larger importance why should we? Thats what I am trying to say here, not trying to sound condescending but thats just the way I see this. I hope you pause and try to see what I am getting at because this is not meant as an attack.
Final-Fan said: Now, looking at the first graph if we assume the starting point lines up correctly, we still have the issue that the increase in C02 is quite steep initially, actually it is a comparably steep incline to the portion of the graph representing the late 1800's and early 1900s. So unless you and pro-GW scientist want to fight historians about exactly how quickly industrialization occured in the late 1700's and mid 1800s you must concede that they do not fit properly. That's a good point, but you may notice that one temperature jump in particular looks like an outlier. Other than that one dot, it's almost a straight-line increase to the late 1800s. Or, if we assume it is accurate, there is indeed an oddity where CO2 rate-of-increase jumped towards the end of the 18th century but slackened off in the early-mid 19th before skyrocketing. [edit: slight correction to timeline] Hell, maybe the 1700s increase isn't primarily human-caused after all. But that doesn't explain the rest. |
I agree there should be a reasonable explanation for the increases in that graph, what I don't agree about is that its meaningful to this debate. More on the explanations below...
Final-Fan said: Is there a connection? There is probably a case to be made there, but the fact is that correlation does not imply causation. This is not a new concept in science or logic, and has been accepted for some time. Correlations are justification for further research not confirmation of theory. And certainly not the basis of an argument. If there's one potential cause that correlates very strongly to a result and the others do not, I'd call that sound basis for an argument. I have asked you for alternative hypotheses for the massive increase at the end of the measurement which you have been unable to provide. |
Perhaps I wasn't precisely clear before, but let me attempt to be this time. When I said that it was justification for research I meant that its worth looking into. When I said that its not the basis for an argument I meant that its not a valid way to further an argument when you can't even be sure if there is a valid connection in the first place. An argument is about facts (should be) and a correlation is not a fact. Myself and any self-respecting scientist will refuse any point presented as a fact if it is merely supported by correlation. It is an interesting note I agree but again I call into question its applicability in this discussion and I feel I have provided facts that do so and as such I don't see the point in continuing this discussion when the larger point has been called into question. But again I will attempt to answer below.
Final-Fan said: Responding to your final paragraph. This entire post was basically telling me what data to use, what portions of the graph to look at and in general you are trying to take all of the thought out of it and say "here look at it exactly like I want you to and then tell me what you think". Ah, no. It is a fact that the graph ends in 1978 at about 337 ppm; that the present total has increased about (correction) 40 ppm from that time to 2004 according to this source; that such a time period would be not more than "a few millimeters". I asked you to consider the amended data and provide me a hypothesis other than human industry that might explain it. I don't see how asking you to look at DATA is asking you to "look at it exactly like I want you to". If I sounded condescending or haughty, it was completely inadvertent, I assure you.
|
The problem you don't see is that I don't buy into much of the data you presented... yet I try to address it anyways. You call my data into question so I find new data. So when you insist that I respond to this data and the data is phrased into this time period and you want me to answer for a specific shape in the graph and you ask that we only focus on this point and nothing else you are absolutely shaping the debate. Whether your intentions are pure or corrupt is not of consequence, the effect is the same. And I was fine with everything but restricting the debate..but I will get to that later on.
To be fair the earlier portions of the debate are my fault, I felt my argument was extremely strong and so I tried to fight on your terms so that you would see the argument that much stronger supported by facts you already trusted. Its very hard to get someone to see your point when they vehemently disagree so you have to start with something they trust. In some situations it backfires in some it doesn't. I'm not sure what kind of situation this is yet.
Final-Fan said: To be honest I don't think that the C02 increase is independant of man-kind's influence, and never said it was, I just don't think the C02 increase means a damn thing on the larger scale when put in context with larger climate drivers. Which is why I have a hard time sitting here letting you phrase the debate to your liking only. At the risk of beating a dead horse, THIS PARTICULAR DISCUSSION IS NOT ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING BUT ABOUT CO2 AND WHETHER MOST OF ITS INCREASE FROM ~280 PPM TO ~380 PPM IN A MATTER OF TWO CENTURIES IS DUE TO MANKIND OR NOT. |
Finally we reach this point. First of all let me say that there is FAR to little information to go on. This graph only shows a correlation and utterly fails to break down or label major influences such as volcanic eruptions. There are an enormous amount of contributors and without a proper study I fail to see how I am supposed to account for this or with any degree of certainty say what caused it.
What I will however say is that I have no doubt mankind has contributed to the increase. The amount is what is in question. And using your graph if I take all of the C02 increase in ppm from 1750 until 1978 (the latest number on that graph) and attribute ALL OF IT to mankind I end up with 19.3% of the C02 in the atmosphere being due to human activity and then if I use realclimate's percentages I showed that it accounts for 6.755% of ALL warming due to greenhouse effect.
All of that information is valid to this debate and while I understand your position you need to understand mine as well. I feel like I have been extremely accomodating in using whatever data you would like and making my points in spite of that. I feel like you have for the most part decided which topics we would discuss and I was fine with that and continued to make my points as each topic was discussed. But I will not participate in the discussion that does not deal with the larger issue, the issue I care about. I am glad to discuss other topics as well but when we remove the larger issue I take exception.
That doesn't mean I hate you or dislike you, it just means I draw the line there and the debate is over. To be honest I did appreciate you retracting your hasty judgments early in the thread and I do respect you (but not just for that). But I will not compromise my position for respect only and as I have said, fundamental to my position is that the GW debate lacks overall context. I feel it compromises my position to participate when to do so goes against the very position I attempt to defend.
If we are being honest this is probably for the best anyways, these things go in circles and get old. So lets just call it quits now and agree to disagree while we still respect each other =)
Fair enough? Can we agree to disagree?
PS - Feel free to have the last word to wrap up anything you feel is important, but I'd prefer if you not pose questions as it only encourages that we prolong this.
 |
| To Each Man, Responsibility |
