Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

AGW - Correlation-Causation Fallacy

DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 11:34:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Why do proponents of AGW cling to correlation as proof of causation?

If A and B are correlated, and assuming it's not a coincidence, then there are three possibilities:

1. A causes B
2. B causes A
3. C causes both A and B

Because spikes in CO2 lag spikes in temperatures, the correlation does not prove CO2 causes Climate Change. If one did cause the other, climate change would be causing changes in CO2 levels; that is assuming it is not just a coincidence, and that C does not causes both A and B.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 11:39:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 11:34:17 AM, DanT wrote:
Why do proponents of AGW cling to correlation as proof of causation?

If A and B are correlated, and assuming it's not a coincidence, then there are three possibilities:

1. A causes B
2. B causes A
3. C causes both A and B

Because spikes in CO2 lag spikes in temperatures, the correlation does not prove CO2 causes Climate Change. If one did cause the other, climate change would be causing changes in CO2 levels; that is assuming it is not just a coincidence, and that C does not causes both A and B.

This would work, except for the fact that the greenhouse effect of CO2 has been tested in a laboratory and documented. So, it's more like this:

1. CO2 is known to cause temperatures to rise
2. CO2 levels are rising
3. Global temperatures are rising
3. It is quite reasonable to assume that since CO2 causes temperatures to rise, and since global temperatures are rising, that CO2 is a cause of said temperature rise.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 11:40:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Eh, I had two #3's on that list. Oh well. You know what I mean.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 11:44:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 11:39:55 AM, drhead wrote:
At 6/12/2013 11:34:17 AM, DanT wrote:
Why do proponents of AGW cling to correlation as proof of causation?

If A and B are correlated, and assuming it's not a coincidence, then there are three possibilities:

1. A causes B
2. B causes A
3. C causes both A and B

Because spikes in CO2 lag spikes in temperatures, the correlation does not prove CO2 causes Climate Change. If one did cause the other, climate change would be causing changes in CO2 levels; that is assuming it is not just a coincidence, and that C does not causes both A and B.

This would work, except for the fact that the greenhouse effect of CO2 has been tested in a laboratory and documented. So, it's more like this:

1. CO2 is known to cause temperatures to rise
2. CO2 levels are rising
3. Global temperatures are rising
3. It is quite reasonable to assume that since CO2 causes temperatures to rise, and since global temperatures are rising, that CO2 is a cause of said temperature rise.

Except the greenhouse effect also cools the earth, and studies show that "the cooling effect due to keeping incoming solar IR radiation away from the surface is about 100 times the re-heating effect proclaimed by greenhouse gas alarmists".
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com...
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 12:10:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 11:44:40 AM, DanT wrote:
At 6/12/2013 11:39:55 AM, drhead wrote:
At 6/12/2013 11:34:17 AM, DanT wrote:
Why do proponents of AGW cling to correlation as proof of causation?

If A and B are correlated, and assuming it's not a coincidence, then there are three possibilities:

1. A causes B
2. B causes A
3. C causes both A and B

Because spikes in CO2 lag spikes in temperatures, the correlation does not prove CO2 causes Climate Change. If one did cause the other, climate change would be causing changes in CO2 levels; that is assuming it is not just a coincidence, and that C does not causes both A and B.

This would work, except for the fact that the greenhouse effect of CO2 has been tested in a laboratory and documented. So, it's more like this:

1. CO2 is known to cause temperatures to rise
2. CO2 levels are rising
3. Global temperatures are rising
3. It is quite reasonable to assume that since CO2 causes temperatures to rise, and since global temperatures are rising, that CO2 is a cause of said temperature rise.

Except the greenhouse effect also cools the earth, and studies show that "the cooling effect due to keeping incoming solar IR radiation away from the surface is about 100 times the re-heating effect proclaimed by greenhouse gas alarmists".
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com...

Yea, that's complete bullsh1t right there.

It's well recognized that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that causes heating. However, how much is what's up for debate. With a system like the earth's climate there are positive feedback loops that causes more heating.

And yes, the correlation is not causation for the previous cycles. However, there's been more carbon dioxide gas in modern times that can be accounted for by just heating effects, and its because of humans.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 12:14:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Co2 gas doesn't keep radiation away. It stores them so that less radiation escapes from the earth. I mean, lol its really basic understanding of heat transfer on whether co2 causes more or less warming.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 12:17:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I mean this is literally like saying that wearing a black shirt is good to wear on a warm day because it blocks off radiation.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 12:27:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 11:34:17 AM, DanT wrote:
Why do proponents of AGW cling to correlation as proof of causation?

We don't. We merely acknowledge that correlation makes causation more likely, statistically. Two things that are correlated are more likely to be involved in a relationship of some sort than two things that are not.

If A and B are correlated, and assuming it's not a coincidence, then there are three possibilities:

1. A causes B
2. B causes A
3. C causes both A and B

Correct.

Because spikes in CO2 lag spikes in temperatures, the correlation does not prove CO2 causes Climate Change. If one did cause the other, climate change would be causing changes in CO2 levels; that is assuming it is not just a coincidence, and that C does not causes both A and B.

Actually, they don't really lag temperature.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 1:43:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 11:44:40 AM, DanT wrote:
At 6/12/2013 11:39:55 AM, drhead wrote:
At 6/12/2013 11:34:17 AM, DanT wrote:
Why do proponents of AGW cling to correlation as proof of causation?

If A and B are correlated, and assuming it's not a coincidence, then there are three possibilities:

1. A causes B
2. B causes A
3. C causes both A and B

Because spikes in CO2 lag spikes in temperatures, the correlation does not prove CO2 causes Climate Change. If one did cause the other, climate change would be causing changes in CO2 levels; that is assuming it is not just a coincidence, and that C does not causes both A and B.

This would work, except for the fact that the greenhouse effect of CO2 has been tested in a laboratory and documented. So, it's more like this:

1. CO2 is known to cause temperatures to rise
2. CO2 levels are rising
3. Global temperatures are rising
3. It is quite reasonable to assume that since CO2 causes temperatures to rise, and since global temperatures are rising, that CO2 is a cause of said temperature rise.

Except the greenhouse effect also cools the earth, and studies show that "the cooling effect due to keeping incoming solar IR radiation away from the surface is about 100 times the re-heating effect proclaimed by greenhouse gas alarmists".
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com...

Infrared radiation only makes up part of solar radiation. In addition, most of the solar radiation that makes its way to earth is converted to heat (and therefore becomes infrared), and when that passes through the atmosphere again, it is reflected off of the greenhouse gases. Your study may or may not be correct, but that is a bit irrelevant.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 2:06:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 12:14:55 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Co2 gas doesn't keep radiation away. It stores them so that less radiation escapes from the earth. I mean, lol its really basic understanding of heat transfer on whether co2 causes more or less warming.

Actually it does both, as does all Greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases deflect radiation back into space, and the little radiation that breaks through the greenhouse barrier gets trapped by the barrier; thus both cooling and heating the earth. That's why global warming alarmists also blame global warming on the depletion of Ozone (O3), which is a greenhouse gas. Basically there are two schools;
1 too little green house gas, and
2 too much green house gas.
Those who believe there is too much greenhouse gas blame CO2, while those who believe there is too little greenhouse gas blame CFCs.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 2:11:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 2:06:59 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/12/2013 12:14:55 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Co2 gas doesn't keep radiation away. It stores them so that less radiation escapes from the earth. I mean, lol its really basic understanding of heat transfer on whether co2 causes more or less warming.

Actually it does both, as does all Greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases deflect radiation back into space, and the little radiation that breaks through the greenhouse barrier gets trapped by the barrier; thus both cooling and heating the earth. That's why global warming alarmists also blame global warming on the depletion of Ozone (O3), which is a greenhouse gas. Basically there are two schools;
1 too little green house gas, and
2 too much green house gas.
Those who believe there is too much greenhouse gas blame CO2, while those who believe there is too little greenhouse gas blame CFCs.

Except depleting ozone isn't causing global warming. Second off the ozone layer exists in the upper atmosphere, while carbon dioxide exists in the lower atmosphere. Third, two different chemicals, different interactions.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 2:13:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 2:06:59 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/12/2013 12:14:55 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Co2 gas doesn't keep radiation away. It stores them so that less radiation escapes from the earth. I mean, lol its really basic understanding of heat transfer on whether co2 causes more or less warming.

Actually it does both, as does all Greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases deflect radiation back into space, and the little radiation that breaks through the greenhouse barrier gets trapped by the barrier; thus both cooling and heating the earth. That's why global warming alarmists also blame global warming on the depletion of Ozone (O3), which is a greenhouse gas. Basically there are two schools;
1 too little green house gas, and
2 too much green house gas.
Those who believe there is too much greenhouse gas blame CO2, while those who believe there is too little greenhouse gas blame CFCs.

However, you can fit both into one category:
1. human activity is screwing with the climate

This is the general idea behind global warming: we need to minimize the amount of screwing with the climate that we do.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 2:14:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 12:10:31 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/12/2013 11:44:40 AM, DanT wrote:
At 6/12/2013 11:39:55 AM, drhead wrote:
At 6/12/2013 11:34:17 AM, DanT wrote:
Why do proponents of AGW cling to correlation as proof of causation?

If A and B are correlated, and assuming it's not a coincidence, then there are three possibilities:

1. A causes B
2. B causes A
3. C causes both A and B

Because spikes in CO2 lag spikes in temperatures, the correlation does not prove CO2 causes Climate Change. If one did cause the other, climate change would be causing changes in CO2 levels; that is assuming it is not just a coincidence, and that C does not causes both A and B.

This would work, except for the fact that the greenhouse effect of CO2 has been tested in a laboratory and documented. So, it's more like this:

1. CO2 is known to cause temperatures to rise
2. CO2 levels are rising
3. Global temperatures are rising
3. It is quite reasonable to assume that since CO2 causes temperatures to rise, and since global temperatures are rising, that CO2 is a cause of said temperature rise.

Except the greenhouse effect also cools the earth, and studies show that "the cooling effect due to keeping incoming solar IR radiation away from the surface is about 100 times the re-heating effect proclaimed by greenhouse gas alarmists".
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com...

Yea, that's complete bullsh1t right there.

It's well recognized that CO2 is a greenhouse gas,
True
that causes heating.
And cooling, as does all greenhouse gases. CO2 is also a refrigerant, by the way.
However, how much is what's up for debate. With a system like the earth's climate there are positive feedback loops that causes more heating.

And yes, the correlation is not causation for the previous cycles. However, there's been more carbon dioxide gas in modern times that can be accounted for by just heating effects, and its because of humans.
Not true. CO2 levels have been much higher in the past, and they have historically fluctuated quite rapidly. CO2 lags temp, so CO2 can't be the cause of temp. That is like saying "the fire caused me to drop the match" when the match dropped before the fire started. An increase in temperature causes the oceans to release CO2 into the atmosphere. Man is responsible for less than 4% of atmospheric CO2, so it is quite ridiculous to claim we are responsible for the CO2 levels.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 2:20:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 2:13:29 PM, drhead wrote:
At 6/12/2013 2:06:59 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/12/2013 12:14:55 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Co2 gas doesn't keep radiation away. It stores them so that less radiation escapes from the earth. I mean, lol its really basic understanding of heat transfer on whether co2 causes more or less warming.

Actually it does both, as does all Greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases deflect radiation back into space, and the little radiation that breaks through the greenhouse barrier gets trapped by the barrier; thus both cooling and heating the earth. That's why global warming alarmists also blame global warming on the depletion of Ozone (O3), which is a greenhouse gas. Basically there are two schools;
1 too little green house gas, and
2 too much green house gas.
Those who believe there is too much greenhouse gas blame CO2, while those who believe there is too little greenhouse gas blame CFCs.

However, you can fit both into one category:
1. human activity is screwing with the climate

This is the general idea behind global warming: we need to minimize the amount of screwing with the climate that we do.

But Man's contribution to greenhouse gases is insignificant compared to nature's contributions.

Man-Made contributions to the Green House effect by category;
Water vapor: 0.001%
CO2: 0.117%
Methane: 0.066%
N20: 0.047%
Other: 0.047%

Man is only responsible for 3.225% of CO2, while the other 96.775% is natural.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 2:22:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 12:27:51 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 6/12/2013 11:34:17 AM, DanT wrote:
Why do proponents of AGW cling to correlation as proof of causation?

We don't. We merely acknowledge that correlation makes causation more likely, statistically. Two things that are correlated are more likely to be involved in a relationship of some sort than two things that are not.

If A and B are correlated, and assuming it's not a coincidence, then there are three possibilities:

1. A causes B
2. B causes A
3. C causes both A and B

Correct.

Because spikes in CO2 lag spikes in temperatures, the correlation does not prove CO2 causes Climate Change. If one did cause the other, climate change would be causing changes in CO2 levels; that is assuming it is not just a coincidence, and that C does not causes both A and B.

Actually, they don't really lag temperature.
Actually they do
http://www.debate.org...
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 2:23:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 2:14:35 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/12/2013 12:10:31 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/12/2013 11:44:40 AM, DanT wrote:
At 6/12/2013 11:39:55 AM, drhead wrote:
At 6/12/2013 11:34:17 AM, DanT wrote:
Why do proponents of AGW cling to correlation as proof of causation?

If A and B are correlated, and assuming it's not a coincidence, then there are three possibilities:

1. A causes B
2. B causes A
3. C causes both A and B

Because spikes in CO2 lag spikes in temperatures, the correlation does not prove CO2 causes Climate Change. If one did cause the other, climate change would be causing changes in CO2 levels; that is assuming it is not just a coincidence, and that C does not causes both A and B.

This would work, except for the fact that the greenhouse effect of CO2 has been tested in a laboratory and documented. So, it's more like this:

1. CO2 is known to cause temperatures to rise
2. CO2 levels are rising
3. Global temperatures are rising
3. It is quite reasonable to assume that since CO2 causes temperatures to rise, and since global temperatures are rising, that CO2 is a cause of said temperature rise.

Except the greenhouse effect also cools the earth, and studies show that "the cooling effect due to keeping incoming solar IR radiation away from the surface is about 100 times the re-heating effect proclaimed by greenhouse gas alarmists".
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com...

Yea, that's complete bullsh1t right there.

It's well recognized that CO2 is a greenhouse gas,
True
that causes heating.
And cooling, as does all greenhouse gases. CO2 is also a refrigerant, by the way.

And the two phenomena you're talking about are not even closely related. Refrigerting systems run by having the fluid absorb heat and pumping heat out. The total refrigerating system actually increases the total amount of heat in the world, but the system gets cooled while the surroundings heat up.

However, how much is what's up for debate. With a system like the earth's climate there are positive feedback loops that causes more heating.

And yes, the correlation is not causation for the previous cycles. However, there's been more carbon dioxide gas in modern times that can be accounted for by just heating effects, and its because of humans.
Not true. CO2 levels have been much higher in the past, and they have historically fluctuated quite rapidly. CO2 lags temp, so CO2 can't be the cause of temp. That is like saying "the fire caused me to drop the match" when the match dropped before the fire started. An increase in temperature causes the oceans to release CO2 into the atmosphere. Man is responsible for less than 4% of atmospheric CO2, so it is quite ridiculous to claim we are responsible for the CO2 levels.

Please show me, because from what I've read CO2 are at its highest levels its been in the history we have (well unless you include earth's really early history).

Yes, I know about the CO2 and temperature correlation. Al Gore was using bad science in his presentation. My point though is that this isn't the case for the present. Humans are the main drivers of CO2 emissions.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 2:26:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 2:20:46 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/12/2013 2:13:29 PM, drhead wrote:
At 6/12/2013 2:06:59 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/12/2013 12:14:55 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Co2 gas doesn't keep radiation away. It stores them so that less radiation escapes from the earth. I mean, lol its really basic understanding of heat transfer on whether co2 causes more or less warming.

Actually it does both, as does all Greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases deflect radiation back into space, and the little radiation that breaks through the greenhouse barrier gets trapped by the barrier; thus both cooling and heating the earth. That's why global warming alarmists also blame global warming on the depletion of Ozone (O3), which is a greenhouse gas. Basically there are two schools;
1 too little green house gas, and
2 too much green house gas.
Those who believe there is too much greenhouse gas blame CO2, while those who believe there is too little greenhouse gas blame CFCs.

However, you can fit both into one category:
1. human activity is screwing with the climate

This is the general idea behind global warming: we need to minimize the amount of screwing with the climate that we do.

But Man's contribution to greenhouse gases is insignificant compared to nature's contributions.

Man-Made contributions to the Green House effect by category;
Water vapor: 0.001%
CO2: 0.117%
Methane: 0.066%
N20: 0.047%
Other: 0.047%

Man is only responsible for 3.225% of CO2, while the other 96.775% is natural.

Humans are responsible for methane, and nitrogen dioxide as well. Water vapor comes from a positive feedback loop that is due to warming conditions.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 2:32:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 2:11:59 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/12/2013 2:06:59 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/12/2013 12:14:55 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Co2 gas doesn't keep radiation away. It stores them so that less radiation escapes from the earth. I mean, lol its really basic understanding of heat transfer on whether co2 causes more or less warming.

Actually it does both, as does all Greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases deflect radiation back into space, and the little radiation that breaks through the greenhouse barrier gets trapped by the barrier; thus both cooling and heating the earth. That's why global warming alarmists also blame global warming on the depletion of Ozone (O3), which is a greenhouse gas. Basically there are two schools;
1 too little green house gas, and
2 too much green house gas.
Those who believe there is too much greenhouse gas blame CO2, while those who believe there is too little greenhouse gas blame CFCs.

Except depleting ozone isn't causing global warming.
I agree. The CFCs are not depleting the Ozone.
Second off the ozone layer exists in the upper atmosphere, while carbon dioxide exists in the lower atmosphere. Third, two different chemicals, different interactions.

Different chemicals trap and repel radiation at different rates, but both trap and repel radiation. As I already stated, the cooling effect is much greater than the heating effect. That is not to say there is no heating effect, only that it is canceled out by the superior cooling effect. Imagine if you will, lighting a candle than turning on the AC. The candle may generate heat, but not enough to trump the AC.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 2:34:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 2:26:53 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/12/2013 2:20:46 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/12/2013 2:13:29 PM, drhead wrote:
At 6/12/2013 2:06:59 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/12/2013 12:14:55 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Co2 gas doesn't keep radiation away. It stores them so that less radiation escapes from the earth. I mean, lol its really basic understanding of heat transfer on whether co2 causes more or less warming.

Actually it does both, as does all Greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases deflect radiation back into space, and the little radiation that breaks through the greenhouse barrier gets trapped by the barrier; thus both cooling and heating the earth. That's why global warming alarmists also blame global warming on the depletion of Ozone (O3), which is a greenhouse gas. Basically there are two schools;
1 too little green house gas, and
2 too much green house gas.
Those who believe there is too much greenhouse gas blame CO2, while those who believe there is too little greenhouse gas blame CFCs.

However, you can fit both into one category:
1. human activity is screwing with the climate

This is the general idea behind global warming: we need to minimize the amount of screwing with the climate that we do.

But Man's contribution to greenhouse gases is insignificant compared to nature's contributions.

Man-Made contributions to the Green House effect by category;
Water vapor: 0.001%
CO2: 0.117%
Methane: 0.066%
N20: 0.047%
Other: 0.047%

Man is only responsible for 3.225% of CO2, while the other 96.775% is natural.

Humans are responsible for methane, and nitrogen dioxide as well.
Yes I know
Water vapor comes from a positive feedback loop that is due to warming conditions.
>.< Point?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 2:37:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 2:32:19 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/12/2013 2:11:59 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/12/2013 2:06:59 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/12/2013 12:14:55 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Co2 gas doesn't keep radiation away. It stores them so that less radiation escapes from the earth. I mean, lol its really basic understanding of heat transfer on whether co2 causes more or less warming.

Actually it does both, as does all Greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases deflect radiation back into space, and the little radiation that breaks through the greenhouse barrier gets trapped by the barrier; thus both cooling and heating the earth. That's why global warming alarmists also blame global warming on the depletion of Ozone (O3), which is a greenhouse gas. Basically there are two schools;
1 too little green house gas, and
2 too much green house gas.
Those who believe there is too much greenhouse gas blame CO2, while those who believe there is too little greenhouse gas blame CFCs.

Except depleting ozone isn't causing global warming.
I agree. The CFCs are not depleting the Ozone.
Second off the ozone layer exists in the upper atmosphere, while carbon dioxide exists in the lower atmosphere. Third, two different chemicals, different interactions.

Different chemicals trap and repel radiation at different rates, but both trap and repel radiation. As I already stated, the cooling effect is much greater than the heating effect. That is not to say there is no heating effect, only that it is canceled out by the superior cooling effect. Imagine if you will, lighting a candle than turning on the AC. The candle may generate heat, but not enough to trump the AC.

Retarded analogy, since AC runs completely differently than what effects were talking about (AC generates heat in the universe btw).

Yes, I recognize the idea of reflection, which is why one wears a white shirt on a cool day.

I'm just stating that the scientific opinion almost unanimously rejects what you're saying based on empirical evidence.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 2:39:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 2:34:21 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/12/2013 2:26:53 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/12/2013 2:20:46 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/12/2013 2:13:29 PM, drhead wrote:
At 6/12/2013 2:06:59 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/12/2013 12:14:55 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Co2 gas doesn't keep radiation away. It stores them so that less radiation escapes from the earth. I mean, lol its really basic understanding of heat transfer on whether co2 causes more or less warming.

Actually it does both, as does all Greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases deflect radiation back into space, and the little radiation that breaks through the greenhouse barrier gets trapped by the barrier; thus both cooling and heating the earth. That's why global warming alarmists also blame global warming on the depletion of Ozone (O3), which is a greenhouse gas. Basically there are two schools;
1 too little green house gas, and
2 too much green house gas.
Those who believe there is too much greenhouse gas blame CO2, while those who believe there is too little greenhouse gas blame CFCs.

However, you can fit both into one category:
1. human activity is screwing with the climate

This is the general idea behind global warming: we need to minimize the amount of screwing with the climate that we do.

But Man's contribution to greenhouse gases is insignificant compared to nature's contributions.

Man-Made contributions to the Green House effect by category;
Water vapor: 0.001%
CO2: 0.117%
Methane: 0.066%
N20: 0.047%
Other: 0.047%

Man is only responsible for 3.225% of CO2, while the other 96.775% is natural.

Humans are responsible for methane, and nitrogen dioxide as well.
Yes I know
Water vapor comes from a positive feedback loop that is due to warming conditions.
>.< Point?

Where's your source for this anyhow?

There are multiple causes for humans increasing co2 emissions. It's not just from coal and fuel burning plants. Deforestation, and increased amount of humans and animals (livestock) contribute as well.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 2:50:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 2:23:15 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/12/2013 2:14:35 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/12/2013 12:10:31 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/12/2013 11:44:40 AM, DanT wrote:
At 6/12/2013 11:39:55 AM, drhead wrote:
At 6/12/2013 11:34:17 AM, DanT wrote:
Why do proponents of AGW cling to correlation as proof of causation?

If A and B are correlated, and assuming it's not a coincidence, then there are three possibilities:

1. A causes B
2. B causes A
3. C causes both A and B

Because spikes in CO2 lag spikes in temperatures, the correlation does not prove CO2 causes Climate Change. If one did cause the other, climate change would be causing changes in CO2 levels; that is assuming it is not just a coincidence, and that C does not causes both A and B.

This would work, except for the fact that the greenhouse effect of CO2 has been tested in a laboratory and documented. So, it's more like this:

1. CO2 is known to cause temperatures to rise
2. CO2 levels are rising
3. Global temperatures are rising
3. It is quite reasonable to assume that since CO2 causes temperatures to rise, and since global temperatures are rising, that CO2 is a cause of said temperature rise.

Except the greenhouse effect also cools the earth, and studies show that "the cooling effect due to keeping incoming solar IR radiation away from the surface is about 100 times the re-heating effect proclaimed by greenhouse gas alarmists".
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com...

Yea, that's complete bullsh1t right there.

It's well recognized that CO2 is a greenhouse gas,
True
that causes heating.
And cooling, as does all greenhouse gases. CO2 is also a refrigerant, by the way.

And the two phenomena you're talking about are not even closely related. Refrigerting systems run by having the fluid absorb heat and pumping heat out. The total refrigerating system actually increases the total amount of heat in the world, but the system gets cooled while the surroundings heat up.


I said "by the way", indicating that the comment was a side note. Furthermore, the effects of refrigeration is more localized. If you absorb heat from spot a and move it 3 feet to spot b, the average heat of spots a + b does not change, even though spot b has gotten hotter.

However, how much is what's up for debate. With a system like the earth's climate there are positive feedback loops that causes more heating.

And yes, the correlation is not causation for the previous cycles. However, there's been more carbon dioxide gas in modern times that can be accounted for by just heating effects, and its because of humans.
Not true. CO2 levels have been much higher in the past, and they have historically fluctuated quite rapidly. CO2 lags temp, so CO2 can't be the cause of temp. That is like saying "the fire caused me to drop the match" when the match dropped before the fire started. An increase in temperature causes the oceans to release CO2 into the atmosphere. Man is responsible for less than 4% of atmospheric CO2, so it is quite ridiculous to claim we are responsible for the CO2 levels.

Please show me, because from what I've read CO2 are at its highest levels its been in the history we have (well unless you include earth's really early history).

Here is a graph
http://www.debate.org...
Here are averages for each geological period: http://www.ei.lehigh.edu...
Yes, I know about the CO2 and temperature correlation. Al Gore was using bad science in his presentation. My point though is that this isn't the case for the present. Humans are the main drivers of CO2 emissions.

No we are not.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 3:00:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 2:39:49 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/12/2013 2:34:21 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/12/2013 2:26:53 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/12/2013 2:20:46 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/12/2013 2:13:29 PM, drhead wrote:
At 6/12/2013 2:06:59 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/12/2013 12:14:55 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Co2 gas doesn't keep radiation away. It stores them so that less radiation escapes from the earth. I mean, lol its really basic understanding of heat transfer on whether co2 causes more or less warming.

Actually it does both, as does all Greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases deflect radiation back into space, and the little radiation that breaks through the greenhouse barrier gets trapped by the barrier; thus both cooling and heating the earth. That's why global warming alarmists also blame global warming on the depletion of Ozone (O3), which is a greenhouse gas. Basically there are two schools;
1 too little green house gas, and
2 too much green house gas.
Those who believe there is too much greenhouse gas blame CO2, while those who believe there is too little greenhouse gas blame CFCs.

However, you can fit both into one category:
1. human activity is screwing with the climate

This is the general idea behind global warming: we need to minimize the amount of screwing with the climate that we do.

But Man's contribution to greenhouse gases is insignificant compared to nature's contributions.

Man-Made contributions to the Green House effect by category;
Water vapor: 0.001%
CO2: 0.117%
Methane: 0.066%
N20: 0.047%
Other: 0.047%

Man is only responsible for 3.225% of CO2, while the other 96.775% is natural.

Humans are responsible for methane, and nitrogen dioxide as well.
Yes I know
Water vapor comes from a positive feedback loop that is due to warming conditions.
>.< Point?

Where's your source for this anyhow?

There are multiple causes for humans increasing co2 emissions. It's not just from coal and fuel burning plants. Deforestation, and increased amount of humans and animals (livestock) contribute as well.

http://www.geocraft.com...

"Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not."
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 3:07:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 11:34:17 AM, DanT wrote:
Why do proponents of AGW cling to correlation as proof of causation?

If A and B are correlated, and assuming it's not a coincidence, then there are three possibilities:

1. A causes B
2. B causes A
3. C causes both A and B

I would add:

4. C causes A, and D causes B.

Because spikes in CO2 lag spikes in temperatures, the correlation does not prove CO2 causes Climate Change. If one did cause the other, climate change would be causing changes in CO2 levels; that is assuming it is not just a coincidence, and that C does not causes both A and B.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 6:31:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 2:22:59 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/12/2013 12:27:51 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 6/12/2013 11:34:17 AM, DanT wrote:
Why do proponents of AGW cling to correlation as proof of causation?

We don't. We merely acknowledge that correlation makes causation more likely, statistically. Two things that are correlated are more likely to be involved in a relationship of some sort than two things that are not.

If A and B are correlated, and assuming it's not a coincidence, then there are three possibilities:

1. A causes B
2. B causes A
3. C causes both A and B

Correct.

Because spikes in CO2 lag spikes in temperatures, the correlation does not prove CO2 causes Climate Change. If one did cause the other, climate change would be causing changes in CO2 levels; that is assuming it is not just a coincidence, and that C does not causes both A and B.

Actually, they don't really lag temperature.
Actually they do
http://www.debate.org...

No they don't. The paper's conclusions violate conservation of mass (http://www.sciencedirect.com...), and their methods are incapable of diagnosing long-term cause and effect relationships (http://troyca.wordpress.com...).

At 6/12/2013 2:20:46 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/12/2013 2:13:29 PM, drhead wrote:
At 6/12/2013 2:06:59 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/12/2013 12:14:55 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Co2 gas doesn't keep radiation away. It stores them so that less radiation escapes from the earth. I mean, lol its really basic understanding of heat transfer on whether co2 causes more or less warming.

Actually it does both, as does all Greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases deflect radiation back into space, and the little radiation that breaks through the greenhouse barrier gets trapped by the barrier; thus both cooling and heating the earth. That's why global warming alarmists also blame global warming on the depletion of Ozone (O3), which is a greenhouse gas. Basically there are two schools;
1 too little green house gas, and
2 too much green house gas.
Those who believe there is too much greenhouse gas blame CO2, while those who believe there is too little greenhouse gas blame CFCs.

However, you can fit both into one category:
1. human activity is screwing with the climate

This is the general idea behind global warming: we need to minimize the amount of screwing with the climate that we do.

But Man's contribution to greenhouse gases is insignificant compared to nature's contributions.

Man-Made contributions to the Green House effect by category;
Water vapor: 0.001%
CO2: 0.117%
Methane: 0.066%
N20: 0.047%
Other: 0.047%

Man is only responsible for 3.225% of CO2, while the other 96.775% is natural.

Which is probably why we aren't seeing something like a doubling of absolute temperature. A relatively small amount that is our fault can have large impacts.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 7:27:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 3:07:47 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/12/2013 11:34:17 AM, DanT wrote:
Why do proponents of AGW cling to correlation as proof of causation?

If A and B are correlated, and assuming it's not a coincidence, then there are three possibilities:

1. A causes B
2. B causes A
3. C causes both A and B

I would add:

4. C causes A, and D causes B.

That would be a coincidence
Because spikes in CO2 lag spikes in temperatures, the correlation does not prove CO2 causes Climate Change. If one did cause the other, climate change would be causing changes in CO2 levels; that is assuming it is not just a coincidence, and that C does not causes both A and B.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 11:31:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 2:32:19 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/12/2013 2:11:59 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/12/2013 2:06:59 PM, DanT wrote:

Actually it does both, as does all Greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases deflect radiation back into space, and the little radiation that breaks through the greenhouse barrier gets trapped by the barrier; thus both cooling and heating the earth. That's why global warming alarmists also blame global warming on the depletion of Ozone (O3), which is a greenhouse gas. Basically there are two schools;
1 too little green house gas, and
2 too much green house gas.
Those who believe there is too much greenhouse gas blame CO2, while those who believe there is too little greenhouse gas blame CFCs.

Except depleting ozone isn't causing global warming.
I agree. The CFCs are not depleting the Ozone.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2013 11:32:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/12/2013 7:27:39 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/12/2013 3:07:47 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/12/2013 11:34:17 AM, DanT wrote:
Why do proponents of AGW cling to correlation as proof of causation?

If A and B are correlated, and assuming it's not a coincidence, then there are three possibilities:

1. A causes B
2. B causes A
3. C causes both A and B

I would add:

4. C causes A, and D causes B.

That would be a coincidence
Because spikes in CO2 lag spikes in temperatures, the correlation does not prove CO2 causes Climate Change. If one did cause the other, climate change would be causing changes in CO2 levels; that is assuming it is not just a coincidence, and that C does not causes both A and B.

And Z causes C and D.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!