The First Crack in the Iceberg Of Global Warming...

Status
Not open for further replies.
My point is that without direct observation and repeatability we are dealing with a hypothesis ie hypothetical ie "complex speculation".

The theory of gravity can be observed and repeated.

Electrical circuit theory can be observed and repeated.

Global climate change hypotheses have not been observed nor repeated and are as such "complex speculation." Global weather patterns such as temperature, precipitation, sea level, etc. have been measured and recorded for at most a few hundred years compared to the several thousand or million years "speculated" on.

Maybe in another few million years with an identical sister planet as a control variable we can actually formulate observable and repeatable theories of global climate change. Until then may the political types decide what is best for the planet.

... five, six, seven, eight ...
 
Redworm says,
global warming can indeed lead to global cooling
Click to expand...
Hard to argue with logic like that!

I've seen this sig line and have thought of adopting it: "Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."

Back to guns, the real reason I'm here.
 
The only CORROLATING information I have seen is between solar activity and global temperature changes. Those two vary directly. Co2 does not.

attachment.php


attachment.php


These charts are from NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). I would hope they could be held as scientific and expert in their field.

The charts illistrate over 100 years of corrolating data.

Between the choice of believing scientist that use the words 'direct evidence that correlates" and those that use words like "very likely based on apparent" I will go with the guys presenting hard evidence over presumptive hypothesis. The difference is one group has facts and has come to a conclusion based on them and the other group has a conclusion and is looking for facts to support it.
 
I'm still curious at what point people think that the whole "anthropogenic climate change" idea breaks down?

Do you think that Carbon Dioxide has a net warming effect in the atmosphere?
Do you think that the earth is getting warmer?
Do you think that this warming is in some way related to the increased CO2 concentration?

Redhawk We have reasonable methods for collecting large scale datasets involving the climate. ANd the key to global climate change is more likely in smaller scale processes, which we CAN observe and test.


Bruxley, those are interesting graphs. What NOAA report did they come from?
 
I've seen those charts comparing earth's warming cooling cycles with the sun's activities for several years now. The information has been available for some time, I even saw a documentary about a scientist that first charted them, going around to various events trying to get his message out. I never saw such outrage and hostility from people outside of entertainment media. It was if a Mormon had interrupted a Jehovah Witness convention. These guys were actually livid.

In the end some of the scientist concede his data was a little difficult to ignore and should at least be considered.
Another problem for the Church of Global Warming is that Mar's temperature has gone up about the same as the earth's.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
 
For those interested in packaged presentations appearing on non-US media outlets challenging conventional wisdom, take a hike over to Youtube and watch a 8 part series. Al Gore's position does not come out looking so good. "The Great Global Warming Swindle" appeared on the BBC as a special about a year ago.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=fo4R7yXz-90
 
Creature, I'm not sure about the validity of that data. It says it was prepared by a climatologist, but it lacks a y axis scale and sources. Here's what the NOAA thinks happened in the past 1000 years.

NOAA.jpg


ALso, i found where Bruxley got his data from:

http://www.research.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_sunclimate.html

the NOAA wroteEven the climate changes of the 20th century may have a significant solar component. Figure 3 shows comparisons of globally averaged temperature and solar activity. Many scientists find that these correlations are convincing evidence that the sun has contributed to the global warming of the 20th century. Some say that as much as 1/3 of the global warming may be the result of an increase in solar energy. So, while it is becoming clear that human activity is changing the climate today, solar activity may also be contributing to climate change and probably changed the climate in the past.
Click to expand...

This has been a good discussion, its caused me to re-evaluate my thoughts about global warming and do some further reading.
And I i've come out of this more convinced that humans are causing clmate change.
 
Creature, I'm not sure about the validity of that data. It says it was prepared by a climatologist, but it lacks a y axis scale and sources.
Click to expand...

Look closer. The little ice age bottomed out at 54.3 degrees and the "center" of the y-axis is 58 degrees.

Cliff Harris is considered one of the preemminent climatologists in the world.
 
There is almost a perfect correlation between sunspot activity and global warming.
Click to expand...

We are at the bottom of the sunspot cycle. Should peak again about 2014. I don't understand that explanation.
 
Correlations and correlatable factors

Within the GW debate many valid points and arguments are presented. Al Gore, for instance, in his book "Earth in Balance" states many facts supporting GW but fails to validate syllogistically those facts to support his thesis. He was writing from a very emotional viewpoint and, from a strictly scientific viewpoint, failed to make his point. His film presents a thesis based more on fact than emotion.

On to correlations. We can correlate many factors to support either the pro or the con of GW. The valid arguments supporting GW are those where various local and short term (such as volcanic activity, 22-year sun spot cycles, El Nino and La Nina, etc) influences are factored out of the equation. We are then left with evidence (succinctly stated by TheFacts' post) that points to human influence on global climate. Two spikes in increased concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gasses are evident. The first is slight but significant and occurred 4000 years ago when agriculture became a dominant endeavor. The second spike is very pronounced, and is still rising, and correlates very well with the industrial revolution beginning in the mid 19th century.

As stated earlier the "jury is still out" but the facts are in. Scientists use paleo evidence to determine the sequence and veracity of past events. Paleo evidence such as atmospheric composition 4000 years ago is real and is not the subject, as stated in a recent post, of "speculation." We can currently theorize and speculate on the origins of life but not on evidence that is in hand and can be scientifically analyzed.

Please remember and keep in mind that science is the search for truth and explanation. But along that path are many blind leads that lead away from the truth. Aristotle's description of the universe (celestial spheres) is one that held sway for nearly 1500 years. He used the tools of his era and was not considered wrong until tools were developed that factually refuted his observations. Presently our tools are good and continually improving.
 
Presently our tools are good and continually improving.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, our tools are dependent, are they not on Higher Mathematics, a subject I daresay maybe one person on this whole Board understands, which means a lesser ratio of the general public :)

WildigetconfusedeasilyAlaska ™
 
Paleo evidence such as atmospheric composition 4000 years ago is real and is not the subject, as stated in a recent post, of "speculation."
Click to expand...
The evidence is real however the conclusions based on this evidence are hypothetical and not theoretical, therefore speculative. In fact the chances of proving atmospheric trends over the history of the planet Earth (however long that may be) are probably greater than the chance that human activity has no influence on atmospheric processes. If a butterfly flapping it's wings in Japan can cause a hurricane in Mexico ...

Give me data that correlates historical atmospheric composition causality and the current mainstream scientific hypothesis for the data and I can (probably) formulate an equally valid hypothesis that can be neither proven nor disproven.

PM me if you like, I enjoy playing these types of games ;)

We can prove that light is made of variable frequencies of electromagnetic radiation by passing it through a prism and observing the results but we cannot prove whether light is particulate or wave in nature. We also assume that light behavior is absolute throughout the universe and base our entire model of the universe and its history on this assumption. If we are to determine that the nature of light is not absolute our hypothesis of the origins of the universe and this planet fall apart.

We take readings from tree rings, ice core samples, rock samples of a "known" age and determine the atmospheric composition and sea level 4000, 20000, 10000000 years ago. But again we assume certain constants (the exponential decay of certain radioactive isotopes) and if those constants are not absolute our hypotheses falls apart.

We apply simplistic models to complex processes that are infinite in both subjective and mathematical terms and come to conclusions that may or may not stand the rigors of scientific time. Aristotle's description of the universe is a fine example, because like him we used the tools of our era. To assume that those tools are infallible and not subject to future scientific modification or outright rejection is arrogant at best.
 
No doubt data can and will be mined from paleo evidence but the $64K question is "Is that the right data set to look at?" Some take a strong position that it is "the" place to look, if not "the only" place to look, tool quality notwithstanding.

Others, I guess we could call them the contrarians, are looking in other places, evaluating other kinds of data and their conclusions couldn't be more at odds.

Time will tell.

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175

Best

S-
 
On the other hand, our tools are dependent, are they not on Higher Mathematics
Click to expand...

Well I guess we all know what your favorite subject in school was :barf:
That`s ok, I hated math too.

The evidence is real however the conclusions based on this evidence are hypothetical and not theoretical, therefore speculative.
Click to expand...

Once again, educated speculatives based on supporting evidence. It will be up to the rest of the scientific community to validate/invalidate the hypothesis by reproducing the experiments used to support the hypothesis.

Give me data that correlates historical atmospheric composition causality and the current mainstream scientific hypothesis for the data and I can (probably) formulate an equally valid hypothesis that can be neither proven nor disproven.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a hypothesis that can neither be proven nor disproven. It may appear that way but it is not. That`s where peer review comes into play. It is the job of other scientists to evaluate the proposed hypothesis by testing it through reproduction of published methodologies.

We can prove that light is made of variable frequencies of electromagnetic radiation by passing it through a prism and observing the results but we cannot prove whether light is particulate or wave in nature.
Click to expand...

Actually, light is now believed to have a dual nature (particles that propagate like waves).

We also assume that light behavior is absolute throughout the universe and base our entire model of the universe and its history on this assumption. If we are to determine that the nature of light is not absolute our hypothesis of the origins of the universe and this planet fall apart.
Click to expand...

The behavior of light is very well understood. You can thank Dr. Einstein and his colleagues for that.

But again we assume certain constants (the exponential decay of certain radioactive isotopes) and if those constants are not absolute our hypotheses falls apart.
Click to expand...

To reaffirm the above, you can thank the decay constant (lambda) in the well established exponential decay equation

We apply simplistic models to complex processes that are infinite in both subjective and mathematical terms and come to conclusions that may or may not stand the rigors of scientific time.
Click to expand...

That`s why it is all so important that experiments are run with a minimum of dependent variables.

Aristotle's description of the universe is a fine example, because like him we used the tools of our era. To assume that those tools are infallible and not subject to future scientific modification or outright rejection is arrogant at best.
Click to expand...

Excellent statement! You have just reinforced the very essence of scientific pursuits. However, a hypothesis, theory, or law stands the test of time not because a group of policyholders or committee members vote to end debate altogether, but because future related studies disclose evidence that supports or dismisses previous findings. Then again, when those findings are published, those findings must also stand the test of time.




Curiosity yields evolution...satiety yields extinction.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top