1. Home
  2. Electronics Design
  3. Mind stretching
  4. Page 2

Mind stretching

This whole "Global Warming" thing has become a holy war. Almost every layman is arguing from a position of faith, rather than actual knowledge. The science is complex, the trends subtle, the short-term variations enough to swamp smaller long-term trends. We've chosen a poor term for the phenomenon, one that adds to the confusion. Every time we get a hot summer, the True Believers say, "See, Global Warming is true!" And every time we get a cold winter, the Infidels say, "See, Global Warming is false!" In the meantime we've got politicians getting onto the bandwagon, either stirring up the Believers or the Infidels in order to garner votes. The truth is not a matter of great concern to these politicians, as usual.

An increase of CO2 does not necessarily cause global warming, nor will reducing CO2 output necessarily avoid it. That is a simplistic and useless view. There are dozens of known factors affecting climate, ranging from solar activity (overall activity and various cycles), the earth's relationship to the sun (distance, angle, etc.), clouds, ice, pollution, greenhouse gases, water vapor, ocean currents, and on and on and on. Each can enhance or reduce the effects of CO2 on global warming.

The *consensus* among climate scientists is that yes, there is global warming that is beginning to affect the long-term climate. Even so, there are respected skeptics among these scientists, guys who doubt it's happening.

The *consensus* among climate scientists is that some part of global warming is anthropogenic; but again, there are some respected skeptics among these scientists.

As for what, if anything, we can do about it? Not such a consensus. As far as I know a majority of climate scientists think it might be a good idea to throttle back on CO2 and CH4 emissions, but I'm not sure it's that much of a majority. There is some thinking that we've already passed a point of no return, or that it's coming up very quickly. Once we pass it, positive feedback kicks in and the process takes on a life of its own that we won't be able to stop.

Beyond that, the consensus falters. Predictions range from the Al Gore apocalypse, to the usual conservative head-in-the-sand attitude of "nothing's going to happen." My guess is that like most things, the truth lies somewhere in between. Some things will suck, some won't be so bad, and we'll muddle through somehow. Just my own wild guess...

Unfortunately, most of the people arguing about all this aren't climate scientists, or scientists of any kind. In fact, most of the debaters don't understand the science behind the issues. They talk about "believing" in global warming, as though discussing a belief in God. They're the ones the politicians listen to.

The sad fact is that the people of the US are incapable of having an informed discussion about global warming. We haven't had the training in critical thinking or basic science required to understand the issues. We don't have the tools to take it beyond the level of a holy war, a debate based on faith.

--
"You who hate the Jews so, why did you adopt their religion?"
		-- Friedrich Nietzsche, addressing anti-semitic Christians
Reply to
Chiron
Loading thread data ...

Flipper, you've got your facts wrong. Climate scientists have made dozens of predictions. Some few have been "confirmed" - or rather, the observations failed to falsify the theory. Most of the predictions require decades or centuries to show a result.

The idea of widespread glacier melting, rises in sea level, changes in weather patterns, etc., are all predictions made by the climate scientists.

See above. Pretty much anything conservatives are screaming about, is a prediction that climate scientists made about global warming.

Yes, AGW *proponents* do scream. They are not climate scientists. The climate scientists don't scream.

Agreed that hysterics are not predictions. You are confusing the claims made by proponents of AGW, with those made by climate scientists. The climate scientists *did* predict that a rise in global temperature would cause various climate effects. Others, non-scientists, took that ball and ran with it, until you wind up with the Al Gore apocalypse.

No climate scientist has made any such prediction. What AGW proponents say cannot be considered a "prediction" since they are not climate scientists.

No, but Einstein was talking about an incredibly simple system, compared to climate. Fortunately for Einstein, he made predictions that were readily testable. However, even he had to wait for a particular eclipse, for one crucial test to be made.

Climate scientists have already made dozens of predictions; some of these have failed to falsify their theories. Others require much more time to yield measurable results, as I noted above. But yes, they've *already* made testable predictions that could falsify their theories. Claiming that they have not, is simply incorrect.

Again I say that you are confusing the claims by AGW proponents - non- scientists - with the predictions made by climate scientists. This is a mistake. Ignore what the non-scientists claim, and you wind up with some excellent science. We just don't know where this science is taking us yet - but that's no fault of the scientists.

--
It is very vulgar to talk like a dentist when one isn't a dentist.
It produces a false impression.
		-- Oscar Wilde.
Reply to
Chiron

No, but it does seem that you do not have a good handle on what constitutes a falsifiable prediction. It must be a new, previously unobserved, measurable, replicable and repeatable, phenomena that is inextricably derived from the core premise and for which there are no alternate means of explanation.

None of your alleged 'predictions' come even remotely close.

One does not need to bring up 'man' or CO2 to know that 'warm melts ice' and the same lack of any connection to the premise also applies to the rest. I.E. The Earth has been both warmer and colder than today and 'climate' perpetually changes. Your, so called, 'predictions' are like 'predicting' it will rain during the coming year, well duh, and then claiming, when there's rain, your 'theory' it's 'caused' by human Chili farts must be true.

To wit, the current warming trend began around 1850, generally considered the end of "The Little Ice Age." Temperatures warmed, ice melted, oceans rose, and 'climate changed' but where were the SUVs?

Of course, we needn't restrict ourselves to 1850 since the Earth has gone through all manner of small to large 'global warmings' and 'global coolings' throughout it's existence, all without the benefit of man burning fossil fuels.

You claim that, out of the multitude, 'this time' it's man but merely observing something similar to what's happened before has nothing to do with the premise. 'That time' it was natural but 'this time' it isn't? Really? How do you know that? How do you know the same thing, or more, or less, wouldn't be happening regardless, especially since it's happened many times before? How do you know the 'thing' you picked is actually the cause, especially when the same results have happened before without it? How do you know your, so called, 'prediction', which is conveniently 'predicting' the same thing you already see happening, isn't just 'coincidence'.

Just observing a warming doesn't even begin to answer the question.

See above.

That is just factually untrue.

That raises the interesting question of just who it is you claim is the 'author' of the, so called, 'theory', who speaks for it, and who makes the 'official', so called, 'predictions'.

It must be terribly convenient to pick and chose, after a 'criticism' of the premise, who to toss under the bus and which 'predictions', after the results come in, were not really predictions and which were. Convenient but not science.

I do hope you're not going to point to the East Anglia CRU because those folks have committed so many anti-science atrocities that I doubt they even know what the word "science" means.

Good. Unfortunately that is 99% of what passes as 'public science' these days.

See above. I'll entertain your explanation of 'who' you imagine are the alleged "climate scientists" but the ones who *claim* to be 'the climate scientists' produce the most vocal hysterics. And it is not 'by accident' nor are they 'misquoted' by the press.

Which get's back to "well, duh" and I can't imagine anyone doubting that the last glaciation "cause(d) various climate effects" or that the subsequent 'global warming' didn't also have "various climate effects." Not to mention the ones before that.

It's always been a mystery to me why anyone listens to Al Gore about anything.

Pardon me but now you're showing ignorance. The 'possibility' of 'global warming' triggering a new 'ice age' does come from 'climate scientists', or at least they claim to be. The conjecture is a disruption of the Gulf Stream.

I'm not sure Einstein would agree with your assessment of 'complexity' but, in any case, it doesn't matter because, as already mentioned, science does not provide for a 'tough to test' exclusion.

I only mention Einstein's Theory of Relativity because it's an example of good science.

It wasn't a matter of 'fortunate', it was a matter of science, and it only seems 'simple' in hindsight but if Einstein operated the way, so called, 'climate science' does he'd have been whining about "what do you expect me to do? Create a 'control universe' to 'test' my theory?"

You have, so far, failed to name a single one.

On the other hand, I have pointed to one that, if it were 'admitted to', would seem to falsify the conjecture as currently formulated.

Pardon me but it only takes *one* to falsify a theory and you don't get to 'discard' the ones that don't work but claim the leftovers 'support' it.

That you want to 'pick and chose' after the fact proves none of them were 'predictions' to begin with.

If you say so, that's tough. And also irrelevant.

Everything you've provided and said proves the opposite.

Great. I await your coronation of 'who' are your 'climate scientists'.

I'll agree with "we just don't know" and suppose you're saying anyone who claims we do is not a "climate scientist."

Reply to
flipper

t
,

Interesting redefinition of what constitutes a falsifiable prediction. The usual rule is that you've got to predict something that can be measured when it happens. Replicable and repeatable are nice, but things like the transit of Venus take a while to repeat, and don't ever exactly replicate the last event, because all the other planets are in different place.

Don't be silly.

Not exactly. We've been pushing up atmospheric CO2 levels at a remarkable rate, and the consequent temperature rise has also been pretty rapid - whence the famous hockey stick curve.

This is whole different ball game from "warm melts ice".

Ice core data and ocean core sediments are now giving us a pretty good idea of what happened over the last million years or so, and why it happened. Our burning lots of fossil carbon and dumping the consequent CO2 in the atmosphere is something new.

That's one of the hypotheses that gets tested automatically. It's been falsified every time.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Reply to
Bill Sloman

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.