Global warming - once more into the breach.... (Page 2)

Originally posted by Oysterboy

OK Francis, do yourself a favor.

I do agree that climate change is far more of a political argument than a scientific one. The science is largely settled, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and by continuing the burn fossil fuels we are driving more CO2 into the atmosphere and this is warming the planet. What is debatable is what to do about it, and as I have said before, doing nothing is an option.

With this said, why do the conservatives willingly choose to fight the science? This "article" that you cited attempted to discredit the notion of climate change with the argument that the modeling is flawed. Apples and oranges. But they continue to throw up sand in the air in an attempt to discredit the science. We should have the discussion on what policies to adopt, not on the merits of the science. And again, doing nothing is an option.

Originally posted by dmiller5

there is way more money on the side against the science bud. that argument is old, tired, and stupid. 

Originally posted by tuwood

Whenever a scientists (or anyone else) brings up the "settled science" argument, it immediately shows that it's not science.  Science is never settled and the term "settled science" is the most anti-science term a person can say.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas (true) and we are burning more fossil fuels and driving more CO2 into the atmosphere (true).  It is true to say it's having a warming effect on the planet, but it is absolutely false to say it "is warming the planet" which implies it's the primary forcing agent.  This is where climate science is struggling and it couldn't be further away from "settled science". 
There have been numerous models created in an attempt to forecast the temperature increases, but they've all shown too much warming attributed to CO2 when compared to real world observations, which by the very nature of the scientific method proves them to be incorrect.
Global temperatures have absolutely been increasing for thousands of years (millions of years).  Man has absolutely contributed to the increase in temperature.  The question that is still unanswered is how much has man contributed.  As the science continues to mature, the anthropogenic contribution appears to be far less than anyone originally thought.

You're also correct that there's a ton of politics involved in the AGW field.  It's causing a lot of problems for everyone and makes it near impossible to get to the bottom of it. 
My non-peer reviewed scientific opinion is that there's a big ball of gas in the sky that drives our global temperature far greater than anything we could ever do.    The earth is an amazing terrarium that has many abilities to equalize the temperature that we know very little about.

Originally posted by tuwood

Whenever a scientists (or anyone else) brings up the "settled science" argument, it immediately shows that it's not science.  Science is never settled and the term "settled science" is the most anti-science term a person can say.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas (true) and we are burning more fossil fuels and driving more CO2 into the atmosphere (true).  It is true to say it's having a warming effect on the planet, but it is absolutely false to say it "is warming the planet" which implies it's the primary forcing agent.  This is where climate science is struggling and it couldn't be further away from "settled science". 
There have been numerous models created in an attempt to forecast the temperature increases, but they've all shown too much warming attributed to CO2 when compared to real world observations, which by the very nature of the scientific method proves them to be incorrect.
Global temperatures have absolutely been increasing for thousands of years (millions of years).  Man has absolutely contributed to the increase in temperature.  The question that is still unanswered is how much has man contributed.  As the science continues to mature, the anthropogenic contribution appears to be far less than anyone originally thought.

You're also correct that there's a ton of politics involved in the AGW field.  It's causing a lot of problems for everyone and makes it near impossible to get to the bottom of it. 
My non-peer reviewed scientific opinion is that there's a big ball of gas in the sky that drives our global temperature far greater than anything we could ever do.    The earth is an amazing terrarium that has many abilities to equalize the temperature that we know very little about.

Originally posted by Oysterboy I don't want to nit-pick because I think we are not very far off on our thinking, but what I highlighted above is a bit overstated. Note that in my original statement I said "largely settled science". This is to reflect that while we understand the broad arguments, there are some aspects we are still grappling to understand. Much like evolution, it is broadly accepted that humans evolved from early life forms, however some of the aspects of evolution are not well understood. For example, you would expect evolution to occur on a linear path but actually it occurred more like a set of steps (see figure below), what made the evolutionary process occur quickly during some eons but more slowly in others is still a topic for debate, but not the broader theory of evolution - that is settled. The only science that is "settled" per your definition are laws of physics.

Originally posted by tuwood

I wouldn't even say the laws of Physics are settled.  Einstein challenged the "settled science" of Newtonian Physics with his theory of relativity.

Originally posted by Rogillio You beat me too it. Laws of physic are considered 'laws' because we cannot explain them. We can define their characteristic but the why behind it is theory. e.g. Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation. We can define the force between two objects as being a function of the their mass and the inverse square of their separation. But WHY this force exists is, in theory, because of the bending of space-time. And of course quantum mechanics blows up a lot of classical science. BTW, I also do not believe evolution is settle science either. I read a couple of books my an MIT phd micro-biologist and he wrote about evolution on the molecular level. Much of it went over my head and some of it was almost spooky stuff when you talk about how atoms and molecules can combine in such a way as to have self awareness and consciousness. Anyway, he said it's one thing to look at a dog and see how he could evolve from to or from a bigger dog or do with different physical features but, from a microbiological level there is no evolution across species. Not starting an evolution debate, just pointing out that settled science, rarely is. Heck we can't even fully understand light.....electromagnetic wave? Yes. Particle? Yes. Huh? Wonderful world we live in with lots to think about and explore....

Originally posted by Oysterboy

Boyle's law that explains the relationship between gas pressure and volume is expressed like this. Yeah, not a lot left for argument or interpretation:

Originally posted by dmiller5

i just don't know where to start in how inaccurate and how much you just outed yourself as to having no understanding of these subjects.  The republican motto. If I can't understand it, it must not be true! #goddidit

Originally posted by Rogillio Brilliant retort. Guess you never figured out where to start with the inaccuracies so you just lobbed a a few insults. Says more about you than me Dave. Why don’t you debate Maxwell’s equations vs the slits experiment? Or explain the motive force behind evolution at the micromilogical level or even the cellular level. You obviously are an educated man. Explain how DNA splits and joins with another DNA string to form a genetically unique life in such as way that evolves an eyeball. Or, if you got nothing, just throw some insults. Try not to follow the herd.....do your own research.

Originally posted by dmiller5

I don't have the time or energy it would take to be your tutor.  What you said about micro and macro evolution didn't make sense. You could start here, or is berkley fake news too?

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evoscales_01

and this should help with understanding how it works on a molecular level, aka how the actual DNA strands resequence.

http://www.sns.ias.edu/~tlusty/courses/landmark/Kimura1968.pdf

 

Originally posted by 3mar Geez.....ya'll are blowing up my email with updates on this post... Things certainly are getting...... ....wait for it.... .....wait.....for....it..... .....almost there......... .....HEATED in here (bang...zoom!) Ok, so seriously; the reason you can argue this to high heaven is that you're all correct. It's just not black and white or right or wrong. That's the beauty of boundary conditions!! The question is not whether a scientific principle is absolutely correct or incorrect, or a theory is absolutely correct or incorrect, it is a question of whether or not the current theory or principle is sufficient to get the answer you NEED. So arguing absolutes is just dumb...but it does make the work day go by faster. Here's an example; how much do we know about quantum mechanics? Could we argue that a lot of our current theories are wrong, and will likely change? Totally! Could we point to where one scientist or another was wrong or there was a total paradigm shift in the past? You betcha!! Does this discount everything about quantum mechanics? Heck no!! Because within certain boundary conditions, we DO know enough to apply it and make it work for what we need it to. How can you tell? Well, are you reading this? Yes. And you are doing so on a device that uses quantum mechanical principles to make zillions of 1's and 0's into a pretty picture on a screen. So yeah, you can argue that scientists have been wrong and changed their minds a hundred times about quantum mechanics. You can blow hole after hole based on this change or that. But the fact of the matter is that within the boundary conditions of getting a processor to function, we DO know enough and that is absolute fact. Why....because you're able to read this, that's why. So the argument isn't whether scientists are absolutely right or absolutely wrong (but if you're bored, keep arguing), it's about whether or not we have enough knowledge to answer the question that we need to answer, or do the thing we need to do.

Originally posted by dmiller5

I don't have time to educate you and spend eons explaining the nuances of evolutionary theory while you plug your ears and say GOD GOD GOD, UNSETTLED SCIENCE, TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP.  I can provide you things to read, but you've clearly shown you will only read what shills write because it makes you feel right.  Thats the problem with the world today.  People can't get their own ideologies and egos out of the way long enough to face reality.  In science, when someone has a different theory, and then they can demonstrate it, and others can repeat that experiential independently, the new theory replaces the old as more accurate.  In politics, we design an experiment to say what i want, and they shove it in everyone's faces to confuse the issue.

Global warming, evolution, gravity, they are all very real, and very happening, and burying your head in the sand is going to screw those of us who are going to have to live in this world after you die.

Originally posted by dmiller5

That's the problem with the world today. 

Originally posted by dmiller5

I don't have time to educate you and spend eons explaining the nuances of evolutionary theory while you plug your ears and say GOD GOD GOD, UNSETTLED SCIENCE, TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP.  I can provide you things to read, but you've clearly shown you will only read what shills write because it makes you feel right.  Thats the problem with the world today.  People can't get their own ideologies and egos out of the way long enough to face reality.  In science, when someone has a different theory, and then they can demonstrate it, and others can repeat that experiential independently, the new theory replaces the old as more accurate.  In politics, we design an experiment to say what i want, and they shove it in everyone's faces to confuse the issue.

Global warming, evolution, gravity, they are all very real, and very happening, and burying your head in the sand is going to screw those of us who are going to have to live in this world after you die.

Originally posted by Rogillio Yes, you will have to fix the world after we muck it all up. LOL The difference in my and you Dave is I don't really care what other people believe or don't believe. If you believe or don't believe that gravity is caused by objects bending space-time I don't care. I try to live and let live and try my best to not get upset about puszy hats or liberals or illegal aliens. I follow the news and enjoy different idea and opinions - even opinions totally divergent from my own. You can ask 10 people the same question and you will get 15 different answers. Here you go: http://geraldschroeder.com/wordpress/?page_id=82Is this some nut-job Christian? You tell me: Gerald Schroeder is a scientist with over thirty years of experience in research and teaching. He earned his Bachelor’s, Master’s, and Doctorate degrees all at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, with his doctorate thesis being under the supervision of physics professor Robley D. Evans. This was followed by five years on the staff of the MIT physics department.

Originally posted by dmiller5

Tony, becaues when you look at the body of evidence saying its due to us, you say, no, its not settled, I disagree.

 

That isn't intellectually honest, THAT is ideology.