WHere the Global Warming theory REALLY came from. - Page 2

General » General Discussion

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - WHere the Global Warming theory REALLY came from. (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 12/2/2015 1:06:24 AM EDT

[#1]

Quote History

Quoted:

"Hockey Stick" and no warming for 20 years. Hypothesis has been tested and found wanting - particularly with regard to the Beers-Lambert LAW (note, "LAW" and not "hypothesis" - guess why?) and the extinction coefficient thereof.

You are being somewhat dishonest - "Global Warming" is generally understood to mean:

"We are burning fossil fuels which raised CO2. Due to computer models that include large positive forcing effects which have not been demonstrated to exist, this means that the globe will catastrophically heat, ice packs melt, ocean currents stop, dogs will live in sin with cats, etc - UNLESS we go back to a pre-industrial lifestyle by way of taxing ourselves into penury. But no nukes!"

THAT proposition is pure weapons-grade bullshit.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
You guys realize that the greenhouse effect has long been known to science (you know, the fact that the earth is warmer than it would be if it didn't have an atmosphere), and thus its a fact that if we change the atmosphere enough that we could change the greenhouse effect.

Not saying how much change there has been, just stating the incontrovertible fact that we know, with certainty, that there exists an amount of atmospheric change that will increase the earth's temperature.

This is a unavoidable fact of physics. Though the magnitude of these changes is largely unknown.

Like it or not, AGW is a scientifically valid, and entirely reasonable hypothesis. Its not a fact. Its not a foregone conclusion, but it does make sense as a proposed mechanism. Don't like it? Find a better mechanism to explain climatic variations. You'll be famous.

"Hockey Stick" and no warming for 20 years. Hypothesis has been tested and found wanting - particularly with regard to the Beers-Lambert LAW (note, "LAW" and not "hypothesis" - guess why?) and the extinction coefficient thereof.

You are being somewhat dishonest - "Global Warming" is generally understood to mean:

"We are burning fossil fuels which raised CO2. Due to computer models that include large positive forcing effects which have not been demonstrated to exist, this means that the globe will catastrophically heat, ice packs melt, ocean currents stop, dogs will live in sin with cats, etc - UNLESS we go back to a pre-industrial lifestyle by way of taxing ourselves into penury. But no nukes!"

THAT proposition is pure weapons-grade bullshit.

The parts I didn't remove are correct. That's the problem. In a simple case of scientific study, the hypothesis would be tested experimentally and found to be true or false. There is the glorious part of the hypothesis.

You can't build an experiment to test it. The best you can do is make a mathematical model and see if it does what you say it does, but the poorly understood complexity of the subject and the obvious introduction of the experimenter's bias into the test make it useless. Besides, the model predictions were wrong over the last fifteen years.

The most damning bit of it, to me, isn't the money or the lust for power. It's the 97% claim. The Nazis tried the same trick when they wanted to denounce Albert Einstein because he was a Jew. They printed a pamphlet called 100 Scientists Against Einstein. A bunch of party loyalists claimed that relativity was false. Einstein's response defined the scientific method then and especially now. He said, "If I were wrong, one would have been enough."

Posted: 12/2/2015 1:54:19 AM EDT

[#2]

Quote History

Quoted:

The parts I didn't remove are correct. That's the problem. In a simple case of scientific study, the hypothesis would be tested experimentally and found to be true or false. There is the glorious part of the hypothesis.

You can't build an experiment to test it. The best you can do is make a mathematical model and see if it does what you say it does, but the poorly understood complexity of the subject and the obvious introduction of the experimenter's bias into the test make it useless. Besides, the model predictions were wrong over the last fifteen years.

The most damning bit of it, to me, isn't the money or the lust for power. It's the 97% claim. The Nazis tried the same trick when they wanted to denounce Albert Einstein because he was a Jew. They printed a pamphlet called 100 Scientists Against Einstein. A bunch of party loyalists claimed that relativity was false. Einstein's response defined the scientific method then and especially now. He said, "If I were wrong, one would have been enough."

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
You guys realize that the greenhouse effect has long been known to science (you know, the fact that the earth is warmer than it would be if it didn't have an atmosphere), and thus its a fact that if we change the atmosphere enough that we could change the greenhouse effect.

Not saying how much change there has been, just stating the incontrovertible fact that we know, with certainty, that there exists an amount of atmospheric change that will increase the earth's temperature.

This is a unavoidable fact of physics. Though the magnitude of these changes is largely unknown.

Like it or not, AGW is a scientifically valid, and entirely reasonable hypothesis. Its not a fact. Its not a foregone conclusion, but it does make sense as a proposed mechanism. Don't like it? Find a better mechanism to explain climatic variations. You'll be famous.

"Hockey Stick" and no warming for 20 years. Hypothesis has been tested and found wanting - particularly with regard to the Beers-Lambert LAW (note, "LAW" and not "hypothesis" - guess why?) and the extinction coefficient thereof.

You are being somewhat dishonest - "Global Warming" is generally understood to mean:

"We are burning fossil fuels which raised CO2. Due to computer models that include large positive forcing effects which have not been demonstrated to exist, this means that the globe will catastrophically heat, ice packs melt, ocean currents stop, dogs will live in sin with cats, etc - UNLESS we go back to a pre-industrial lifestyle by way of taxing ourselves into penury. But no nukes!"

THAT proposition is pure weapons-grade bullshit.

The parts I didn't remove are correct. That's the problem. In a simple case of scientific study, the hypothesis would be tested experimentally and found to be true or false. There is the glorious part of the hypothesis.

You can't build an experiment to test it. The best you can do is make a mathematical model and see if it does what you say it does, but the poorly understood complexity of the subject and the obvious introduction of the experimenter's bias into the test make it useless. Besides, the model predictions were wrong over the last fifteen years.

The most damning bit of it, to me, isn't the money or the lust for power. It's the 97% claim. The Nazis tried the same trick when they wanted to denounce Albert Einstein because he was a Jew. They printed a pamphlet called 100 Scientists Against Einstein. A bunch of party loyalists claimed that relativity was false. Einstein's response defined the scientific method then and especially now. He said, "If I were wrong, one would have been enough."

That's the issue i have. Clearly there has been a huge spike in CO2. Never has it been so much so fast. Now, what does that mean for the climate - I dunno. Yes we have models but I honestly do not feel we can accurately model something so complex with so many pieces missing.

At the same time - even if it isn't human made change, the world does seem to be getting warmer and we will have a natural state of flux. We may need to abandon some areas because they are too dry or the sea levels rise, etc.

I think the ideas like carbon credit tax is retarded. But investing in new energy sources is a long term, prudent measure. Making the energies we have is a long term prudent measure. I think we should focus on more nuclear energy, including the possibility of Thorium plants.

Posted: 12/2/2015 8:15:25 AM EDT

[#3]

Quote History

Quoted:
Perhaps. It entered popular discourse and began to influence legislation due to politics. You have yet to address the extinction coefficient of Beer's Law, which rather nips this faulty premise in the bud, science-wise.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Which is what I stated.
Not exactly.
Its just a fact that the science of the greenhouse effect means that if the composition of the atmosphere were vastly different, the greenhouse effect would be vastly different. Do you agree?
I agree, depending upon what you mean by "vastly". CO2 is and remains a trace gas, whose effect on temperature, even now, is swamped by that of water and methane.
Can you then see, how people might develop a hypothesis that if the composition of the atmosphere slightly changed, then the greenhouse effect would slightly change, thus slightly affecting temperature?
Yes. Do you claim that mankind has caused enough of a change to be reliably calculated given the data quality and accuracy, as well as the unknown natural variations?
[/span]

And like it or not, it entered scientific discourse because of valid scientific reasoning, not because of politics, or conspiracies, or people making shit up.

Perhaps. It entered popular discourse and began to influence legislation due to politics. You have yet to address the extinction coefficient of Beer's Law, which rather nips this faulty premise in the bud, science-wise.

This has to do with the facts I stated how?
Do you know who was the first person who suggested the idea that changing the concentration of greenhouse gasses could change the greenhouse effect?
Hint, Margette thatcher wasn't even a twinkle in her daddy's eye at that time.
Again, the idea of the greenhouse effect and the idea that man could change the atmospheric concentration of gasses is where the idea for AGW came from. This is just historical fact. You can pretend reality is different than this, but you'd be incorrect.

I know you are going to say "changes we have produced are small, and that we haven't seen any changes in temperature, and we have seen changes in temperature and they are small, and these changes in temperature that we have seen are natural, that other planets are having global warming just like earth, that global warming is good for the planet", but all of these contradictory talking points are irrelevant to the historical origin of the idea of AGW.

ETA::Think of it this way: if you want to know where the first gun control law in the united states occurred, the MSN hit piece they run on the NRA is irrelevant.

Posted: 12/2/2015 9:45:10 PM EDT

[#4]

Quote History

Quoted:
You guys realize that the greenhouse effect has long been known to science (you know, the fact that the earth is warmer than it would be if it didn't have an atmosphere), and thus its a fact that if we change the atmosphere enough that we could change the greenhouse effect.

Not saying how much change there has been, just stating the incontrovertible fact that we know, with certainty, that there exists an amount of atmospheric change that will increase the earth's temperature.

This isn't a theory.

This is a unavoidable fact of physics. Though the magnitude of these changes is largely unknown.

The theory of global warming is saying that the small changes in composition that we have seen is enough to cause observable changes in temperature. Said another way, the theory is taking some facts that we know (the greenhouse effect, an apparently slightly warmer climate, increased CO2 concentrations) and saying that they are correlated. Specifically, the third is causing the second, by way of the first.

It is not, some rumor made up by artillery men. That's just ridiculous.

Like it or not, AGW is a scientifically valid, and entirely reasonable hypothesis. Its not a fact. Its not a foregone conclusion, but it does make sense as a proposed mechanism. Don't like it? Find a better mechanism to explain climatic variations. You'll be famous.

View Quote

You do realize that with CO2's participation on the greenhouse gas effect (~4%) combined with the sink rate and other factors that determine the amount of CO2 emitted that remains in the atmosphere, using the AGW proponents own claims man sourced CO2 figures, that the possible net rise in temperature is less than the standard error for the calculations necessary, making the argument scientifically irrelevant, right?

That's why they are starting to focus on other gases now, like methane.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - WHere the Global Warming theory REALLY came from. (Page 2 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us