Climate Change Discussion

[riptides]

This debate about GW has all the attributes of a religious debate or a Windows vs Mac debate. It's anything but science.

Beg to differ. It is all about science and the methods and practices used to get the data. When the data is presented, the media seeks to sensationalize the results. People and politics come into play because that is what drives change.

Sorry, but your replies speak of the very issue that should not be relevant to the GW data. You in fact debate the very science of gathering data, and when it is presented, you shoot the messengers.

-Mike Z.

 

[MikePA]

Beg to differ. It is all about science and the methods and practices used to get the data. When the data is presented, the media seeks to sensationalize the results. People and politics come into play because that is what drives change.

Sorry, but your replies speak of the very issue that should not be relevant to the GW data. You in fact debate the very science of gathering data, and when it is presented, you shoot the messengers.

-Mike Z.

Please show where any scientist has completed Step 3 of the Scientific Method and proved the hypothesis that humans cause GW.

 

[riptides]

Please show where any scientist has completed Step 3 of the Scientific Method and proved the hypothesis that humans cause GW.

Perhaps your interrpretation of the scientific needs to be revisited.

1. Study and description of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena.

3. Use of the hypothesis to calculate the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the outcome of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests.


Do we debate the methods used by the science next? You said you don't believe in the people, their practices, the data or models used to calculate or predict the observations. So neither of us can progress this debate further.

-Mike Z.

 

[MikePA]

Do we debate the methods used by the science next? You said you don't believe in the people, their practices, the data or models used to calculate or predict the observations.

No we don't debate the methods. The information I found that described the scientific method had 3 steps, yours had 4, big deal. Where have the scientists completed Step 4 of the process you found?

So neither of us can progress this debate further.

Since when is science about debate?

Do mathematicians 'debate' whether 2 + 2 = 4?
Do physicists 'debate' E = mcc (squared)? Note: Scientists did debate this until they were able to prove this theory.

Some people seem more than willing to cough up wads of new tax dollars and the power to control more and more of people's lives to fight a problem that is nothing more than a theory.

 

[SPYDERLK]

Quote:
Originally Posted by SPYDERLK
It seems to me that those who deny GW or are agnostic toward it are more prone to concentrate sequentially on narrow parts of the picture, to engage in sensational statements, and tend to amplify unknowns to bolster their arguments. Those who are making the case for it are coming at it more gently. The money is on the other side. So is denial.

This is laughable. A series of UN panels have said we have (fill in number of years) to solve the problem before doomsday, talk about 'sensational' statements. And money? Who's funding all these UN studies that 'prove' GW? GW is all over the media for the same reason, it's sensational news. "World to end in 10 years, film at 11." These scientists have replaced Step 3 of the Scientific Method (Prove Hypothesis) with Step 3. Media Blitz. Make people feel guilty about their 'carbon footprint' and my goodness, the children, what are we doing to our children. Yes, yes, I will vote for more taxes to solve this problem, after all, it's for the children.

Blaming man for GW is not science, it's conjecture, arrogance and hubris. 'Scientists' study and find 'evidence' of GW and the only hypothesis they can come up with is man caused it. Can it be a natural cycle? Can it be increased solar activity. NO, man caused it is the the theory. Puny, insignificant man, who can not change the weather tomorrow, can not predict the weather out a week, can not change the course of a hurricane, has not only caused GW but is the only one who can save the world from it.

And anyone who disagrees is a simpleton, if they could just learn more, understand more, be as smart as us, understand this complicated graph, those poor saps would understand. So sad. That leaves us no alternatives but to pass laws to enforce belief. Oh, and pass new taxes to rake in more dollars to solve this problem. Yes, more money into an 'GW Resolution Trust Fund' just like the Social Security Fund. Since solving this problem will take sooooo long, we'll need to collect this money for a long time. And we'll dispense some of it as grants, to scientists and think tanks, and universities to 'study' the problem more and develop solutions that will cost even more money to implement, so, unfortunately, yes, we'll need to raise your taxes again. Perhaps a few 'blue ribbon' panels, a cabinet position, a couple Congressional committees and, of course, a Department of Extreme Climatological Change (can't call it GW anymore, even though GW explains all weather extremes, GW might confuse the simpletons) with a few thousand bureaucrats.

If this were science there wouldn't be debate and 'views' about it nor the need for consensus. This debate about GW has all the attributes of a religious debate or a Windows vs Mac debate. It's anything but science.

A sensational edit quoted from what I wrote in post #239. Followed up by more sensational prose skirting the issue.
Larry

 

[MikePA]

A sensational edit quoted from what I wrote. Followed up by more sensational prose skirting the issue.
Larry

Skirting what issue? GW? Read my response to riptides. Hopefully, that wasn't too much prose nor too sensational.

 

[SPYDERLK]

Quote: Do we debate the methods used by the science next? You said you don't believe in the people, their practices, the data or models used to calculate or predict the observations. So neither of us can progress this debate further. -Mike Z.

This seems to te the way it goes when people grab scientific observation and sensationalize it. The actual investigative resources allotted to the pursuit of data and unbiased interpretation are so tiny when compared to the money and angst arrayed against. It would be so much more productive to just start filling in the blanks.
Larry

 

[dmccarty]

Dean,

And in the graph the rising CO2 concentrations seem to map to Ice Ages. The graph seems to indicate that higher concentration of CO2 leads to Ice Ages not Global Warming. Which maps back to the Gloom and Doom theories back in the 70s that The Next Ice Age commeth.
If we are warming up to the a point that melts the ice caps, that fits the theory concerning the shutting down of the Atlantic Conveyor which drops us into an Ice Age but not a hot earth.

But where is the proof that CO2 causes Global Warming?

The Aztecs believed that if they did not sacrifice live humans then the sun would not rise. So they killed people and the Sun showed up each morning. Therefore their theory and was correct. The "proofs" I read about always seem to get back to computer models of which I'm very skeptical. I can create a program to print out a bank statement that says I have more money than Bill Gates but that don't make it so.

How does the heat island effect global temperatures and how is that normalized? When "scientists" tell me that there are more huricanes and that they are more powerful because of Global Warming, well that is just simply BS. The long term data is from Satellite data. But yet this is thrown out as fact based on 40 years worth of data. Bovine Scat.

The same thing is true for temperature change. Now we can see that glaciers are melting and retreating or some/most are. but this has been happening since the last ice age. Which stands to reason since we have been warming since the last ice age. So shouldn't the glaciers retreat?

I have read about the longevity of CO2. So if CO2 leads to warming that would be badness. But water vapor is a green house gas. Is more in the atmosphere or not? How much warming is due to CO2 and how much to H2O?

And how much of the CO2 is human caused vs nature. The two numbers I have seen have been that human caused CO2 is less than 5% and 1/30. Which are pretty close to each other.

Many scientists have gone done the path of String Theory in physics. Lots of money has been spent with not much proof. I have heard comments from scientists that not getting on the String Theory bus is a career limiting move. When people are calling for Global Warming Doubters to be fired, me thinks not getting on the Global Warming Bus is a Career Killer.

Later,
Dan

 

[SPYDERLK]

Dan, Im not sure exactly what the graph says. It is not clear exactly where the ice ages are wrt the CO2 peaks, nor does the graph tell us of other events that may have contributed to the situation. There is a tremendous amount of info in the ice record - perhaps all that is needed if only all the nuances can be recognized. The effect of CO2 on inhibiting escape of IR radiation is known and scientifically proven however. That, in itself is a 1st order indication that it favors retention of heat/warming. Seeing that by a majority of indications the earth is getting warmer suggests contribution to an unfavorable outcome, not necessarily causality. I believe none of the researchers believe they truly have it pegged, but they think theyre going in the right direction with their field of inquiry. At the present level of understanding that current unparalleled CO2 spike is troubling. It could very well be that interactive complexities of the biosphere introduce unseen moderating factors. Its a sure thing that these factors will have a limit. We need to know how close to it we are.
Responsible inquirers are trying to work the puzzle. Sensationalists push them into black/white statements that they are loathe to make, because they are still answering their own questions. If they use weasle words, because it is too early to responsibly say for sure, they are accused of bad science. If something turns out wrong they are ridiculed as they change the path of their inquiry, when they are just adapting in order to home in on the truth.
Considering the stakes, I think climate change study should be subsidized for a few years to develop a better organization of the full scope of investigatve resources.
Larry

 

[1948berg]

Who turned off global warming?
http://www.vg.no/mortenm/bilder//6d372c843a9c554e.jpg