The End of the world

[UncleIan]

The problem is that much of that data has been "adjusted" to suit the theory.

Are we still at the theory stage are we?

You know, like gravity and evolution.

yes, I know what a theory is, thanks.

Specifically referring to Global Warming / Climate Change, are we still at the theory stage?

I wasn't taking the urine, I'm sure you do. I think I was trying to shortcut saying the same thing as you, people dismissing climate change as a "theory", when other things that are also "theories" are bedrocks of science.

There was a very christian Biology teacher at college that pre-faced teaching evolution as "it's just one theory". That was a rum do. Sadly I wasn't in the class or I might have asked about dinosaurs until she cried.

[Howyoudoin]

The problem is that much of that data has been "adjusted" to suit the theory.

Are we still at the theory stage are we?

You know, like gravity and evolution.

yes, I know what a theory is, thanks.

Think that joke went right over your head Snorvs. Made me laugh anyway.

HYD

[Leothebear]

Looking at the results of the poll that started the thread, I'm surprised more voted for alien invasion than asteroid impact.

We know there are thousands of potentially deadly asteroids out there. Yet there is no solid evidence of life, let alone intelligent life capable of defeating humanity.

[PinkDalek]

Looking at the results of the poll that started the thread, I'm surprised more voted for alien invasion than asteroid impact.

We know there are thousands of potentially deadly asteroids out there. Yet there is no solid evidence of life, let alone intelligent life capable of defeating humanity.

Yes but the Poll was sub-headed Name your preferred catastrophe and I voted on that basis, seeking a quick end. As it happens, my vote went for Asteroid collision, direct hit preferred.

It was only below that Snorves wrote So assuming we're all dead men walking, what do you think will be the end of us? and I don't think he let people change their votes!

[tjh290633]

The problem is that much of that data has been "adjusted" to suit the theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment. In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.

The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory. In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and widely accepted as valid. These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of prediction in science versus common speech, where it denotes a mere hope."

My underlining.

I think anthropogenic global warming qualifies as a scientific theory, but I'm not sure which theory TJH meant. It sounded like he meant that the data had been adjusted corruptly with malign intent. If that was to the detriment of mankind then surely some other scientists would present untainted data and analysis to heroic acclaim.

It is well known that historical data has been adjusted to match present day measurement methods, and has been synthesized where no records existed. You will no doubt recall the infamous J-curve of Al Gore's film. Unfortunately, although carbon dioxide levels rose, temperatures failed to do as predicted. The theory is wrong but actual measurements are not. The mercury thermometer is still reliable and it is the more modern instruments which need to have their outputs adjusted.

There are other factors which the theory has failed to take into account, not least the solubility of carbon dioxide in seawater.

TJH

[sunnyjoe]

It is well known that historical data has been adjusted to match present day measurement methods, and has been synthesized where no records existed. You will no doubt recall the infamous J-curve of Al Gore's film. Unfortunately, although carbon dioxide levels rose, temperatures failed to do as predicted. The theory is wrong but actual measurements are not. The mercury thermometer is still reliable and it is the more modern instruments which need to have their outputs adjusted.

There are other factors which the theory has failed to take into account, not least the solubility of carbon dioxide in seawater.

TJH

Yes, some of the data is imperfect or incomplete and had to be processed accordingly. That doesn't make the analysis fraudulent or wrong. This is an issue of measurement and data processing. A Nobel prize and the gratitude of the world awaits anyone who can show that we don't need to worry about global warming because it doesn't exist or has no net negative impact.

Raising the solubility of CO2 introduces a new and separate issue of modelling.

This link suggests that CO2 solubility is a well known and not neglected factor, albeit challenging to model.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/OceanCarbon

At a simplistic level, the solubility of carbon dioxide in sea water is a positive feedback. The warmer the world the less CO2 is soluble and more is returned to the atmosphere contributing to trapping more heat.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... ice-cores/

The failure of a model to include every factor does not mean the model is unsuitable for a particular purpose.

[BrummieDave]

A popular (!) meal time discussion in our house is arguing about what will cause the demise of human life on earth first.

My son who is the cleverest and most broadly knowledgeable, well read, member of the family always argues for AI.

My daughter, a medic, says it will be a superbug caused by the overuse of antibiotics.

I believe it will be human caused, one way or another, probably following the proliferation of nuclear arms to larger numbers of countries.

My wife doesn't join in, and asks that we talk about something else.

We have such fun when we get together...

[XFool]

I think anthropogenic global warming qualifies as a scientific theory, but I'm not sure which theory TJH meant. It sounded like he meant that the data had been adjusted corruptly with malign intent. If that was to the detriment of mankind then surely some other scientists would present untainted data and analysis to heroic acclaim.

Maybe 'They' are all at it? Maybe it's a CONSPIRACY?

[Clitheroekid]

Liverpool winning the EPL etc.....

Eeeek!

We're doomed. Around May time I should think.

Enjoy.

No, it'll be in the bag by mid-April at the latest!

[tjh290633]

Raising the solubility of CO2 introduces a new and separate issue of modelling.

This link suggests that CO2 solubility is a well known and not neglected factor, albeit challenging to model.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/OceanCarbon

At a simplistic level, the solubility of carbon dioxide in sea water is a positive feedback. The warmer the world the less CO2 is soluble and more is returned to the atmosphere contributing to trapping more heat.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... ice-cores/

The failure of a model to include every factor does not mean the model is unsuitable for a particular purpose.

The simplistic model is wrong. Increased carbon dioxide is a function of ocean warming in part. There are several more gases which contribute to the greenhouse effect, of which water vapour is the most powerful.

The obsession with carbon dioxide is where they are going astray.

TJH

[UncleEbenezer]

The simplistic model is wrong. Increased carbon dioxide is a function of ocean warming in part. There are several more gases which contribute to the greenhouse effect, of which water vapour is the most powerful.

Water vapour is of course the most powerful. But it has a (rapid) natural cycle and somewhere to go: the oceans have ample capacity. So it's not building up in long-term-harmful quantities in the atmosphere.

The obsession with carbon dioxide is where they are going astray.

TJH

Carbon Dioxide is the biggest problem[1], because its natural cycle lacks capacity to deal with mankind's emissions. That's a similar problem to long-lasting radioactive waste, except that the latter is only ever very localised, whereas CO2 is a global problem. And it's compounded with mankind's use of so much land in ways that impair its natural capacity to recycle CO2.

The pre-carboniferous Earth was a very different place, and wouldn't've supported today's high-metabolic-rate life forms (broadly speaking, warm-blooded animals). Personally I'm not in favour of terraforming it back to that by reversing millions of years of CO2 reduction that made our world.

Where "they" go astray is in attributing things to "climate change" as if it were a root cause. It's not: it's an effect of pollution. Other effects of that pollution - such as ocean acidification - are associated with it through their underlying causes, but not caused by it.

[tjh290633]

Carbon dioxide is not pollution. It is a natural constituent of the atmosphere and is essential for plant life. There is a natural cycle and the equilibrium level varies, but it is affected by global temperature, not vice versa. Sooner or later the earth will enter a cooling cycle and the equilibrium level will fall.

Climate scientists support the theory because they are being paid to do so. There are many scientists who can see that the theory is wrong, but that does not suit the climate change agenda, so they don't get paid to say so.

TJH

[servodude]

Carbon dioxide is not pollution. It is a natural constituent of the atmosphere and is essential for plant life. There is a natural cycle and the equilibrium level varies, but it is affected by global temperature, not vice versa. Sooner or later the earth will enter a cooling cycle and the equilibrium level will fall.

Climate scientists support the theory because they are being paid to do so. There are many scientists who can see that the theory is wrong, but that does not suit the climate change agenda, so they don't get paid to say so.

TJH

They're are many nut jobs that think the world is flat.
They're are many nut jobs that think not vaccinating your kids is a good idea.

TBH though the thing that pains me most about science deniers that I've met is that it is normally their ONLY defining feature, and they know it. If only they put their efforts in to something worthwhile, goodness knows what we could achieve as a species.

-sd

[XFool]

The simplistic model is wrong. Increased carbon dioxide is a function of ocean warming in part. There are several more gases which contribute to the greenhouse effect, of which water vapour is the most powerful.

The obsession with carbon dioxide is where they are going astray.

That doesn't seem to make any sense to me.

Water vapour may well be the "most powerful" (no mention of methane?), but water vapour comes from water. AFAIK we aren't producing any more water on planet earth, plus the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is itself determined mainly (solely?) by the temperature of the global climate system.

The "obsession" with carbon dioxide (a long lasting greenhouse gas) is surely that we ARE effectively producing more of it year by year (by liberating it from deep underground).

[XFool]

Carbon dioxide is not pollution. It is a natural constituent of the atmosphere and is essential for plant life. There is a natural cycle and the equilibrium level varies, but it is affected by global temperature, not vice versa. Sooner or later the earth will enter a cooling cycle and the equilibrium level will fall.

Climate scientists support the theory because they are being paid to do so. There are many scientists who can see that the theory is wrong, but that does not suit the climate change agenda, so they don't get paid to say so.

...Not even wrong!

Personally, I just don't 'do' conspiracy theories. The point about conspiracy theories - their fundamental weakness (perversely, their 'strength'!) - is they are never wrong. They cannot ever be 'wrong' because they are adopted and adapted to 'explain' anything and everything, as required by their supporters.

When has any conspiracy theory ever proved to be wrong - to the satisfaction of its adherents?

[gryffron]

I think global warming is caused by 24 hour TV news channels. Think about it, we never heard of climate change before we had 24 hour news. Never a mention of floods/glaciers/forest fires in faraway places when they only had 30 minutes of news to fill. Ever since they've needed 24 hours of continuous news, it has been the endless fill story.

[servodude]

I think global warming is caused by 24 hour TV news channels. Think about it, we never heard of climate change before we had 24 hour news. Never a mention of floods/glaciers/forest fires in faraway places when they only had 30 minutes of news to fill. Ever since they've needed 24 hours of continuous news, it has been the endless fill story.

Try reading Alexander von Humboldt for a change then..

[tjh290633]

They're are many nut jobs that think the world is flat.
They're are many nut jobs that think not vaccinating your kids is a good idea.

TBH though the thing that pains me most about science deniers that I've met is that it is normally their ONLY defining feature, and they know it. If only they put their efforts in to something worthwhile, goodness knows what we could achieve as a species.

-sd

Most of the "nut jobs", as you describe them, are non scientists who believe religiously what the climate change activists preach about.

There are many of us scientists who know enough to be critical of the theories. We also know that attempts to decarbonise the atmosphere by chemical means are vastly inferior to the natural methods of using vegetation. As was said above, we are not making more water, and likewise we are not creating more carbon, just releasing some which has been locked in for a few millennia. Plant life will do it for you.

Use the forces of nature. Don't try to do the impossible.

TJH

[Leothebear]

Use the forces of nature. Don't try to do the impossible.

Well, what with the Amazon rain forest either burning or being hacked down, the bush fires in the US and Australia, wouldn't you say that nature may just need a hand in redressing the balance?

[XFool]

I have to say tjh290633, I am finding the point(s) you are making rather obscure and confusing.

They're are many nut jobs that think the world is flat.
They're are many nut jobs that think not vaccinating your kids is a good idea.

Most of the "nut jobs", as you describe them, are non scientists who believe religiously what the climate change activists preach about.

Most of the described "nut jobs" are indeed unlikely to be scientists. But surely it is the scientists, not the "nut jobs" who are saying the world is NOT flat and that vaccination IS a good idea? In relation to climate change, again it is scientists who are pointing out the problem - the activists are surely carrying out a political campaign based on their understanding of what the science is saying, it isn't their science. Are you implying in this case it is the climate scientists who are the "nut jobs"?

There are many of us scientists who know enough to be critical of the theories. We also know that attempts to decarbonise the atmosphere by chemical means are vastly inferior to the natural methods of using vegetation.

I am unsure where this decarbonisation "by chemical means" comes in, or what is its relevance .

As was said above, we are not making more water, and likewise we are not creating more carbon, just releasing some which has been locked in for a few millennia.

Sure, we are not producing "more carbon", but that is not the point. We are rapidly producing more atmospheric carbon dioxide, from that long buried carbon and hydrocarbons, that was presumably deposited over a very long period. Also, I am rather surprised you, as a self declared scientist, think that such carbon has been buried for only "a few millennia". Surely 100 - 300 million years is more a ballpark figure?

Plant life will do it for you.

Use the forces of nature. Don't try to do the impossible.

So how come "the forces of nature" appear to have been falling down on the job over the last hundred years or so?