A Logical Approach to Global Warming, part II : The Outline

Here is the logical structure and links to data for our GW guide. The structure is organized into topics [arabic numerals; 1, etc.], sub-topics [capital letters; A, etc.], bullets [small roman numerals; i, etc.], and sub-bullets [lower-case letters; a, etc]. In order to prove each topic, each sub-topic and each bullet under it must be shown first. After a bullet is completed, its result will be compressed into FALSE, UNCERTAIN, or TRUE markers, sometimes dependent on sub-bullets. Only when/if each sub-topic is full of bullets with TRUE markers will the sub-topic be marked TRUE and the next sub-topic addressed. The analogous process will be used for proving the topics. Feel free to contribute.

[NOTE: as the structure is being refined, some of the category names might not match the outline. This will be remedied whenever the structure becomes stable.]

1. The earth is warming

A. There is a clear trend of warming

i. direct temperature measurements

a. atmosphere [satellite, balloons]

b. surface [stations]

c. ocean [buoys, satellites]

ii. proxy temperature records

d. ice cores [antarctica, greenland]

e. tree rings

f. other [tree rings, sediment, ice cores]

iii. ice sheet behavior INCOMPLETE

g. Greenland TRUE

h. Antarctica TRUE

i. continental glaciers

j. sea level

k. permafrost and lake and river ice

iv. life TRUE

v. other [coastal wind speed, sea ice]

B. The warming is "special"

vi. rate [historically; accelerating]

vii. scale [historically]

viii. solar system [recent trends]

2. The warming is significantly anthropogenic

C. Natural explainations for the warming are not sufficient

ix. solar [spots, flux, cosmic rays]

x. ice age departure

D. Anthropogenic sources can explain non-natural contribution to the warming

xi. greenhouse gases

a. Are atmospheric GH gases increasing in concentration?

b. Are people responsible for the increase?

c. Can GH gases cause the GH effect?

xii. is the proportion of warming due to anthropogenic causes dominant?

3. Something should be done about it

E. it is possible to solve

F. it is worthwhile to solve

Logically, we can say: AWG if and only if A and B and D. AWG mitigation action is required if and only if 3 [contingent on E and F] and D. Additionally, the hierarchy of the logic is top-down, meaning that questions v through xi are irrelevent until questions i through iv have been established, and so on. I hope that you can all help me flesh out these categories to include more crucial steps in the logic, particularly in part 3.

A complete proof of AWG would flow like this [using ^ for the logical operator AND and => for "IF...THEN" and <=> for "IF AND ONLY IF" and semicolons to seperate clauses]:

(i ^ ii ^ iii ^ iv) => A; (v ^ vi ^ viii) => B; (A ^ B) => 1; (viii ^ ix) => C; (((a ^ b ^ c) => x) ^ xi) => D; C ^ D=> 2; (1 ^ 2 ^ E ^ F) <=> 3.

3, of course, is the only thing that matters.

This will be the logical structure we will follow once it is set in stone. Of course, it is possible to remove a bullet later on by arguments such as "the scale of the warming is irrelevent because..." but we will treat those instances as proven bullets to simplify the process. Help me out with this now so we won't have issues with it later!