GLOBAL WARMING

[The Fish 10966]

I don't understand these people who deny that man has had an affect on Global Warming but cannot produce any evidence to back up their dismissal. They're as bad as the knuckle draggers who dismiss evolution.

[ChezGiven 0]

I don't understand these people who deny that man has had an affect on Global Warming but cannot produce any evidence to back up their dismissal. They're as bad as the knuckle draggers who dismiss evolution.

There is no scientific method available to us that can prove we are the cause of Global Warming.

 

Read Popper.

[Happy Face 29]

I don't understand these people who deny that man has had an affect on Global Warming but cannot produce any evidence to back up their dismissal. They're as bad as the knuckle draggers who dismiss evolution.

There is no scientific method available to us that can prove we are the cause of Global Warming.

 

Read Popper.

 

Like Evolution.

 

And gravity.

 

I'm not going to hoy myself off a building and hope either the general theory of relativity was wrong or god planted the bones to test our faith and will reward me in heaven, when all the evidence suggests otherwise.

Edited July 8, 2010 by Happy Face

[ChezGiven 0]

I don't understand these people who deny that man has had an affect on Global Warming but cannot produce any evidence to back up their dismissal. They're as bad as the knuckle draggers who dismiss evolution.

There is no scientific method available to us that can prove we are the cause of Global Warming.

 

Read Popper.

 

Like Evolution.

 

And gravity.

 

I'm not going to hoy myself off a building and hope either the general theory of relativity was wrong or god planted the bones to test our faith and will reward me in heaven.

 

Why gravity? We've been to the moon so we have n=2 empirical observations and we can study the skies. You can observe experimentally cause and effect with gravity in many situations.

 

Popper called the theory of evolution an epistemological research project, it isnt falsifiable and so is not considered scientifically 'proven', which shouldnt be news to anyone.

[Happy Face 29]

Exactly. None of the 3 theories have been "proved". But the evidence we have tells us they are so.

Edited July 8, 2010 by Happy Face

[ChezGiven 0]

*metaphysical research project (sorry)

[ChezGiven 0]

Actually he retracted the falsifiability claim on evolution - “I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation” (Dialectica 32:344-346).

[Toonpack 9952]

I don't understand these people who deny that man has had an affect on Global Warming but cannot produce any evidence to back up their dismissal. They're as bad as the knuckle draggers who dismiss evolution.

There is no scientific method available to us that can prove we are the cause of Global Warming.

 

Read Popper.

 

Irrespective of what, or how we pump crap into the ecosystem at the end of the day the planet will be fine, we may not be, but hey ho.

 

Millions and millions of years of heating and cooling and all of a sudden it's all our fault

 

Bit like dark matter, maybe it exists, maybe it doesn't.

Edited July 8, 2010 by Toonpack

[Happy Face 29]

My view is this, global warming and cooling is a natural process as shown by ice ages and spells where there is no ice at the poles at all. However, I don't think all the carbon dioxide, methane and the rest of that stuff we're producing is doing much good at all. It is probably knocking a natural cycle out of sync.

 

Humans are responsible for 3% of atmospheric Co2. Global warming is made up. Lock it.

 

I disagree, man made global warming is made up, but I think a totally natural cycle of warming is a fact.

 

Is that just a hunch?

 

You "think" a natural cycle of warming is fact? There's no thinking required on that score. It's a self-evident fact. Sea levels have risen and fallen repeatedlty for millions of years. The sea was low enough that humans could walk from Asia to America tens of thousands years ago.

 

Imagine there's a bowl of water sat in your garden. Throughtout the day and night it warms and cools, evaporates and replenishes naturally depending on the sun, the humidity, the wind, rain etc. That's a natural cycle. Science has shown that in this analogy the water seems to have started boiling up spontaneously on a scale way off the natural process, it's like a kettle's been switched on which the natural cycle can't account for.

 

If you don't believe the science that says it's man made, you'll need to posit another theory than natural cycles.

 

Natural cycles as recorded in ice cores is no good? Well that's science for ya I guess. I am a healer I am telling you the planet is safe.

 

I think you skimmed the post.

 

Natural cycles as recorded in ice cores is perfectly valid as empirical evidence of what we all know is a fact, the earth warms and cools naturally. That doesn't suggest that the sudden increase in the RATE of warming since the industrial revolution is part of that natural cycle though.

[Renton 22002]

You can take philosophy beyond common sense though.

 

Science is all about measuring uncertainty, whether that is in a laboratory or studying the Cosmos. We can prove there is an anthropic cause of climate change beyond any reasonable doubt. Personally I'm not sure we have done this yet, and I am open-minded, but it is certainly a plausible theory which is being backed up by increasing amounts of empirical evidence.

[Happy Face 29]

I don't understand these people who deny that man has had an affect on Global Warming but cannot produce any evidence to back up their dismissal. They're as bad as the knuckle draggers who dismiss evolution.

There is no scientific method available to us that can prove we are the cause of Global Warming.

 

Read Popper.

 

Irrespective of what, or how we pump crap into the ecosystem at the end of the day the planet will be fine, we may not be, but hey ho.

 

Millions and millions of years of heating and cooling and all of a sudden it's all our fault

 

Bit like dark matter, maybe it exists, maybe it doesn't.

 

Humans have been having heart attacks for hundreds of thousands of years and all of a sudden smoking causes it.

 

Yes, that's right. Science has managed to isolate many of the causes of ill health and just about double average life expectancy in the last 100 years.

 

Of course, unless we hurry up and invent a self sufficient space vehicle that requires no maintenance or natural materials then we will eventually be finished as a species whatever we do. It's pretty much a certainty we will become extinct at some point. There's no need to embrace it so soon though.

[Guest alex]

La, la, la, la, la, la...I'm not listening.

[Happy Face 29]

La, la, la, la, la, la...I'm not listening.

 

The Sun is middle aged. It'll soon have less life left to go than it's had so far. It's all downhill for this solar system.

Edited July 8, 2010 by Happy Face

[ChezGiven 0]

I don't understand these people who deny that man has had an affect on Global Warming but cannot produce any evidence to back up their dismissal. They're as bad as the knuckle draggers who dismiss evolution.

There is no scientific method available to us that can prove we are the cause of Global Warming.

 

Read Popper.

 

Irrespective of what, or how we pump crap into the ecosystem at the end of the day the planet will be fine, we may not be, but hey ho.

 

Millions and millions of years of heating and cooling and all of a sudden it's all our fault

 

Bit like dark matter, maybe it exists, maybe it doesn't.

 

Humans have been having heart attacks for hundreds of thousands of years and all of a sudden smoking causes it.

 

Yes, that's right. Science has managed to isolate many of the causes of ill health and just about double average life expectancy in the last 100 years.

 

Of course, unless we hurry up and invent a self sufficient space vehicle that requires no maintenance or natural materials then we will eventually be finished as a species whatever we do. It's pretty much a certainty we will become extinct at some point. There's no need to embrace it so soon though.

 

Through falsifiable science

[Renton 22002]

I don't understand these people who deny that man has had an affect on Global Warming but cannot produce any evidence to back up their dismissal. They're as bad as the knuckle draggers who dismiss evolution.

There is no scientific method available to us that can prove we are the cause of Global Warming.

 

Read Popper.

 

Irrespective of what, or how we pump crap into the ecosystem at the end of the day the planet will be fine, we may not be, but hey ho.

 

Millions and millions of years of heating and cooling and all of a sudden it's all our fault

 

Bit like dark matter, maybe it exists, maybe it doesn't.

 

Humans have been having heart attacks for hundreds of thousands of years and all of a sudden smoking causes it.

 

Yes, that's right. Science has managed to isolate many of the causes of ill health and just about double average life expectancy in the last 100 years.

 

Of course, unless we hurry up and invent a self sufficient space vehicle that requires no maintenance or natural materials then we will eventually be finished as a species whatever we do. It's pretty much a certainty we will become extinct at some point. There's no need to embrace it so soon though.

 

Through falsifiable science

 

Entirely?

 

I don't know if it's just a matter of semantics but I'm struggling with the concept a bit here (still haven't got round to reading Popper admittedly). Cholera was acted on when the causative pathogen was identified. Vaccination was developed on the basis of an ingenious hunch, and later proven mainly through uncontrolled observational evidence. Penicillin was a serendipitous discovery coinciding with a brilliant observer. Many modern drugs are still initially developed as a result of serendipity, or, more likely, from the acquired and collective knowledge of pharmacodynamics from in vitro studies.

 

Then again, the link between vitamin C and Scurvy was established following the first controlled trial by Lind, which falsified some 'remedies' there but more importantly identified limes as curative. So it strikes me that the development of effective medicine is as much about serendipity, observation, common sense, intuition, and genius as it is about falsifiability. Although the latter has become far more important in recent years (post second world war 2).

 

Guess I should read Popper.

[ChezGiven 0]

Its not about whether the experiment is controlled, its about hypothesis generation. The uncontrolled data gives us a hypothesis, we set up further research with the objective of falsification. To truly falsify, the experiment needs to be controlled. Otherwise there is still room for further hypotheses. We still reveal information on cause and effect, its just the strength with which the 'null' hypothesis is rejected that varies (falsification). Popper explains it better tbf.

 

For Global warming the issue is the 'unit of analysis'. In medicine, this is a patient, so you can perform uncontrolled experiments as long as the analysis accounts for confounding in how the units are selected. With Global warming we only have one unit of analysis, earth. To understand the relationship between man's actions and Global temperatures you have to perform a counter-factual analysis, stating what the temperatures would currently be if Man did not pump CO2 into the atmosphere. An impossible scientific pursuit. I think the evangelists in Goldman Sachs recognise that it will be a question of faith so have set about the creation of the market to exploit fear and belief with this in mind.

 

Possibly.

[Park Life 71]

*metaphysical research project (sorry)

 

I like it when you're in this kind of mood.

[Park Life 71]

My view is this, global warming and cooling is a natural process as shown by ice ages and spells where there is no ice at the poles at all. However, I don't think all the carbon dioxide, methane and the rest of that stuff we're producing is doing much good at all. It is probably knocking a natural cycle out of sync.

 

Humans are responsible for 3% of atmospheric Co2. Global warming is made up. Lock it.

 

I disagree, man made global warming is made up, but I think a totally natural cycle of warming is a fact.

 

Is that just a hunch?

 

You "think" a natural cycle of warming is fact? There's no thinking required on that score. It's a self-evident fact. Sea levels have risen and fallen repeatedlty for millions of years. The sea was low enough that humans could walk from Asia to America tens of thousands years ago.

 

Imagine there's a bowl of water sat in your garden. Throughtout the day and night it warms and cools, evaporates and replenishes naturally depending on the sun, the humidity, the wind, rain etc. That's a natural cycle. Science has shown that in this analogy the water seems to have started boiling up spontaneously on a scale way off the natural process, it's like a kettle's been switched on which the natural cycle can't account for.

 

If you don't believe the science that says it's man made, you'll need to posit another theory than natural cycles.

 

Natural cycles as recorded in ice cores is no good? Well that's science for ya I guess. I am a healer I am telling you the planet is safe.

 

I think you skimmed the post.

 

Natural cycles as recorded in ice cores is perfectly valid as empirical evidence of what we all know is a fact, the earth warms and cools naturally. That doesn't suggest that the sudden increase in the RATE of warming since the industrial revolution is part of that natural cycle though.

 

I am a healer. I will heal the planet.

[Park Life 71]

Its not about whether the experiment is controlled, its about hypothesis generation. The uncontrolled data gives us a hypothesis, we set up further research with the objective of falsification. To truly falsify, the experiment needs to be controlled. Otherwise there is still room for further hypotheses. We still reveal information on cause and effect, its just the strength with which the 'null' hypothesis is rejected that varies (falsification). Popper explains it better tbf.

 

For Global warming the issue is the 'unit of analysis'. In medicine, this is a patient, so you can perform uncontrolled experiments as long as the analysis accounts for confounding in how the units are selected. With Global warming we only have one unit of analysis, earth. To understand the relationship between man's actions and Global temperatures you have to perform a counter-factual analysis, stating what the temperatures would currently be if Man did not pump CO2 into the atmosphere. An impossible scientific pursuit. I think the evangelists in Goldman Sachs recognise that it will be a question of faith so have set about the creation of the market to exploit fear and belief with this in mind.

 

Possibly.

 

THe likes of Soros are betting it will become a new exploitable market to replace the failing engines of worldwide crapitalism.

[Renton 22002]

Its not about whether the experiment is controlled, its about hypothesis generation. The uncontrolled data gives us a hypothesis, we set up further research with the objective of falsification. To truly falsify, the experiment needs to be controlled. Otherwise there is still room for further hypotheses. We still reveal information on cause and effect, its just the strength with which the 'null' hypothesis is rejected that varies (falsification). Popper explains it better tbf.

 

For Global warming the issue is the 'unit of analysis'. In medicine, this is a patient, so you can perform uncontrolled experiments as long as the analysis accounts for confounding in how the units are selected. With Global warming we only have one unit of analysis, earth. To understand the relationship between man's actions and Global temperatures you have to perform a counter-factual analysis, stating what the temperatures would currently be if Man did not pump CO2 into the atmosphere. An impossible scientific pursuit. I think the evangelists in Goldman Sachs recognise that it will be a question of faith so have set about the creation of the market to exploit fear and belief with this in mind.

 

Possibly.

 

I understand that study of global climate change is ultimately an n=1 situation, and therefore true controlled studies are not possible, but I'm unsure if that disqualifies climatology as being a true science. If that were the case then we'd also largely have to discount geology, astronomy, and cosmology as being sciences which would be quite ridiculous. There's more to science than controlled studies, observational evidence and modelling are also important, and often the only tools we have. Incidentally, the fact we can't control for biological*, geological, and astronomical evolution in a laboratory is an argument evangelical Christians often use to justify their beliefs - that they can't be falsified by science. I don't accept this.

 

* Biological evolution actually can be observed in the laboratory as I found out in my cancer research days.

[Park Life 71]

All the planets are heating up. Is that factored into these marvelous studies?

[Renton 22002]

All the planets are heating up. Is that factored into these marvelous studies?

 

Give me a credible source for this. The last one you gave didn't show any such thing iirc.

 

For that matter, is there real evidence solar radiation is increasing? Genuine question, I've heard many contradictory 'facts' about this.

[Happy Face 29]

All the planets are heating up.

 

I'd be interested in reading about how they measure that. Source?

 

I know the sun's getting bigger as part of it's natural cycle towards being a red giant like all the other stars, and that it will sooner or later swallow the earth (and all the other planets). But I thought it was an exponential thing and we had a couple of billion more years before the expansion starts ramping up big stylee.

[Renton 22002]

All the planets are heating up.

 

I'd be interested in reading about how they measure that. Source?

 

I know the sun's getting bigger as part of it's natural cycle towards being a red giant like all the other stars, and that it will sooner or later swallow the earth (and all the other planets). But I thought it was an exponential thing and we had a couple of billion more years before the expansion starts ramping up big stylee.

 

The human time frame is miniscule in comparison, it'd be like dying from cancer in a second.

 

Of more concern is the way the Earth oscillates on its axis iirc, that's what cause Ice ages etc.

[AgentAxeman 189]

I thought only a few planets were warming up.

The basis of this argument is that the sun must be causing global warming and in fact, warming throughout the solar system. There are several flaws in this line of thought. Firstly, the characterisation that the whole solar system is warming is erroneous. Around 6 planets or moons out of the more than 100 bodies in the solar system have been observed to be warming. On the other hand, Uranus is cooling (Young 2001).

 

Secondly, the theory that a brightening sun is causing global warming falls apart when you consider the sun has shown little to no trend since the 1950s. A variety of independent measurements of solar activity including satellite data, sunspot numbers, UV levels and solar magnetograms all paint a consistent picture. Over the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been moving in opposite directions.

 

That begs the question - what is causing warming on other planets? With the exception of Pluto, climate change on other planets are fairly understood:

 

Martian climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo. Global dust storms increase the surface albedo by settling brighter dust on dark surfaces. Higher albedo leads to more sunlight being reflected which has a cooling effect. Snapshots of Mars' surface in 1977 and 1999 find that the surface was brighter in 1977 and darker in 1999. However, this doesn't necessarily point to a long term warming trend - the 1977 snapshot was made shortly after a global dust storm while the 1999 snapshot occured before a dust storm. Consequently, there is little empirical evidence that long term global warming on Mars is occuring (Richardson 2007). More on Mars...

Neptune's orbit is 164 years so observations (1950 to present day) span less than a third of a Neptunian year. Climate modelling of Neptune suggests its brightening is a seasonal response (Sromovsky 2003). Eg - Neptune's southern hemisphere is heading into summer. More on Neptune...

Neptune's largest moon, Triton, has warmed since the Voyager space probe visited it in 1989. The moon is approaching an extreme southern summer, a season that occurs every few hundred years. During this special time, the moon's southern hemisphere receives more direct sunlight (Elliot 1998).

Jupiter's storms are fueled by the planet's own internal heat (sunlight is 4% the level of solar energy at Earth). When several storms merge into one large storm (eg - Red Spot Jr), the planet loses its ability to mix heat, causing warming at the equator and cooling at the poles (Marcus 2006). More on Jupiter...

Pluto's warming is not clearly understood. Pluto's orbit is much more elliptical than that of the other planets, and its rotational axis is tipped by a large angle relative to its orbit. Both factors could contribute to drastic seasonal changes. As Pluto's orbit is equivalent to 248 Earth years and observed warming spans only 14 years, it is likely this is a seasonal response (Sromovsky 2003).