Climate Change Report

[McDad]

Sorry, aren't you claiming the professionals are wrong?



As I addressed previously, the scientific method isn't intended to provide absolute certainty. Someone even posted earlier a snippet of the wikipedia page on the problem of induction. Do you not believe that science is largely based on inductive reasoning or are you saying it isn't actually a problem?

I kind of doubt both yours and Roust's accusation that these scientists aren't following consensus methods of scientific inquiry. Do you have evidence that this is a widespread problem in this field?



It's easier to analyze the past than to predict the future.



Maybe. I'm not a scientist though so my opinion on the matter may not be useful at all.

I am saying the professionals are wrong. They've been wrong many times before.

Your version of what the SM accomplishes and my version are different. However, consider this, once something is proven through science there is certainty. From atomic weights to zygote formation, once it is proven and reproduced by other scientists, there is no debate or gray area with what's proven.

Again, consensus defined as a general agreement is inconsequential in proven science. If proven, agreement isn't necessary. If not proven, and agreement is necessary, it isn't science.

The other issue i have with apocalyptic predictions of global climate change is the change is always bad. There is never discussion of the benefits to a changed climate. For example, the other fellow spoke a little about reversal of the oceanic conveyor belt. If that happened, England would be altered with a colder climate. Perhaps Northern Africa would receive lots of moisture; turning the Saharan region lush and green like it has cycled to before in its geologic history.

 

[golfballs]

National News Coverage of Tropical Storm Barry Is Its Own Disaster

 

[McDad]

National News Coverage of Tropical Storm Barry Is Its Own Disaster

Sensationalism at it's most ignorant.

 

[Wafflestomper]

I am saying the professionals are wrong. They've been wrong many times before.

By the same logic we should discard Christianity since many "experts" have been wrong in their predictions regarding Jesus' return. I'm not defending any predictions being made; I'm defending the more general claim of "this is happening."

If you want to prove the professionals wrong you ought to follow the same standards you hold them to. Do science which involves no uncertainty--I'll be glad to read your work when it's published. I mean no offense but most of you guys in here dont even know the difference between a colloquial theory and a scientific theory, yet you think you're in a position to call those who have a wealth of education and experience in the field wrong.

Your version of what the SM accomplishes and my version are different. However, consider this, once something is proven through science there is certainty. From atomic weights to zygote formation, once it is proven and reproduced by other scientists, there is no debate or gray area with what's proven.

Again, consensus defined as a general agreement is inconsequential in proven science. If proven, agreement isn't necessary. If not proven, and agreement is necessary, it isn't science.

You should look up how we have historically "weighed" atoms (e.g., using a mass spectrometer); there is still uncertainty. So measuring atomic weights in this method isn't proven, and thus isn't the subject of true science, by your definition either. Does it only become science when we can eliminate all uncertainty? Do you know if the most contemporary methods have no uncertainty? Is it science if not? We still use mass spectrometers today; can we call this work science?

I guess what I'm getting at here is that I think your definition of what constitutes science is extremely narrow and atypical--almost nothing would be science if this is the standard.

The other issue i have with apocalyptic predictions of global climate change is the change is always bad. There is never discussion of the benefits to a changed climate. For example, the other fellow spoke a little about reversal of the oceanic conveyor belt. If that happened, England would be altered with a colder climate. Perhaps Northern Africa would receive lots of moisture; turning the Saharan region lush and green like it has cycled to before in its geologic history.

I don't know how likely that is to happen but I'd think the problem is that everything--or almost everything--that lives in those climates will have a difficult time adjusting to such a radical change.

 

[McDad]

By the same logic we should discard Christianity since many "experts" have been wrong in their predictions regarding Jesus' return. I'm not defending any predictions being made; I'm defending the more general claim of "this is happening."

If you want to prove the professionals wrong you ought to follow the same standards you hold them to. Do science which involves no uncertainty--I'll be glad to read your work when it's published. I mean no offense but most of you guys in here dont even know the difference between a colloquial theory and a scientific theory, yet you think you're in a position to call those who have a wealth of education and experience in the field wrong.


You should look up how we have historically "weighed" atoms (e.g., using a mass spectrometer); there is still uncertainty. So measuring atomic weights in this method isn't proven, and thus isn't the subject of true science, by your definition either. Does it only become science when we can eliminate all uncertainty? Do you know if the most contemporary methods have no uncertainty? Is it science if not? We still use mass spectrometers today; can we call this work science?

I guess what I'm getting at here is that I think your definition of what constitutes science is extremely narrow and atypical--almost nothing would be science if this is the standard.



I don't know how likely that is to happen but I'd think the problem is that everything--or almost everything--that lives in those climates will have a difficult time adjusting to such a radical change.

Makes no difference to me whether you believe in Christ or reject him. My obligation is to share him with those who have interest. After that, doubters are on their own.

But it is an interesting analogy you've stumbled upon. I have faith in God. Can't prove to anyone empirically He is real. Likewise you have faith in ACC and "Scientists". You also cannot prove their predictions are real. So, here we are both discussing our religions.

No doubt it puts a burden on some societies as climate shifts and changes. Burden is a far cry from gloom-n-doom apocalyptic prognostication. I suspect a burden to one society can be a tremendous blessing to another.

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

Lolololol
That’s an excellent point.

It's where I was going with how much weight (displacement of water) is in the ocean. The sunken ships, planes, trash all raise water levels to some degree. Under water volcanoes that actually erupt and make new rock or islands will do the same also.

 

[Persian Vol]

Makes no difference to me whether you believe in Christ or reject him. My obligation is to share him with those who have interest. After that, doubters are on their own.

But it is an interesting analogy you've stumbled upon. I have faith in God. Can't prove to anyone empirically He is real. Likewise you have faith in ACC and "Scientists". You also cannot prove their predictions are real. So, here we are both discussing our religions.

No doubt it puts a burden on some societies as climate shifts and changes. Burden is a far cry from gloom-n-doom apocalyptic prognostication. I suspect a burden to one society can be a tremendous blessing to another.

This is severely flawed thinking. No rational thinker has “faith” in scientists. The data speaks for itself. There is no “faith” in anything in regards to science.

 

[Persian Vol]

It's where I was going with how much weight (displacement of water) is in the ocean. The sunken ships, planes, trash all raise water levels to some degree. Under water volcanoes that actually erupt and make new rock or islands will do the same also.

I hardly disagree with the general point you are making (as we should not litter the planet), but sunken ships, planes, trash etc. seem like an extroradinly small volume in comparison to the overall volume of the ocean.

 

[McDad]

This is severely flawed thinking. No rational thinker has “faith” in scientists. The data speaks for itself. There is no “faith” in anything in regards to science.

I, too, tried to make that point earlier. The data are either certain or it isn't.

Of course, if the science is suspicious faith is necessary.

 

[Persian Vol]

I, too, tried to make that point earlier. The data are either certain or it isn't.

Of course, if the science is suspicious faith is necessary.

If data is suspicious, another scientist can replicate the experiment to see if there is reliability in the evidence. But under no circumstance should anyone have “faith” in science.

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

I hardly disagree with the general point you are making (as we should not litter the planet), but sunken ships, planes, trash etc. seem like an extroradinly small volume in comparison to the overall volume of the ocean.

But you can't dispute it's displacing water. The water may recede an inch or a foot, who knows. The trash shouldn't be in there regardless.

 

[Wafflestomper]

But it is an interesting analogy you've stumbled upon. I have faith in God. Can't prove to anyone empirically He is real. Likewise you have faith in ACC and "Scientists". You also cannot prove their predictions are real. So, here we are both discussing our religions.

I think many Christians would dispute that there is no empirical evidence supporting it. Casting this aside, I'm having trouble following what it is you're saying, except for accusing me of scientism (which is nonsense, but whatever). This is rather ironic though: since you affirm the opposite position, and likewise cannot provide incontrovertible evidence for it, you tacitly acknowledged that you hold to a similar but opposite religion (anti-climatism?).

 

[Wafflestomper]

I, too, tried to make that point earlier. The data are either certain or it isn't.

Of course, if the science is suspicious faith is necessary.

I think this highlights the heart of the confusion. What is often required is an appeal to the best explanation. There is no faith required; one proportions their belief in the an explanation to the supporting evidence available.

 

[hog88]

National News Coverage of Tropical Storm Barry Is Its Own Disaster

Dear daughter has been in NO all weekend. Storm has effected their trip much at all.

 

[McDad]

If data is suspicious, another scientist can replicate the experiment to see if there is reliability in the evidence. But under no circumstance should anyone have “faith” in science.

I've made this point about reproducibility, too.

 

[McDad]

I think many Christians would dispute that there is no empirical evidence supporting it. Casting this aside, I'm having trouble following what it is you're saying, except for accusing me of scientism (which is nonsense, but whatever). This is rather ironic though: since you affirm the opposite position, and likewise cannot provide incontrovertible evidence for it, you tacitly acknowledged that you hold to a similar but opposite religion (anti-climatism?).

This is accurate in many ways. Well done.

The difference is my skepticism doesn't require a change in the behavior of others by federal mandate or other means. Climatism (nice word, btw...im gonna borrow it) does, or will, require others to change behaviors.

 

[McDad]

I think this highlights the heart of the confusion. What is often required is an appeal to the best explanation. There is no faith required; one proportions their belief in the an explanation to the supporting evidence available.

Ok. Let's run with that. The explanation has its genesis from the best supporting evidence. However, the predictive accuracy which comes from the explanation and observational evidence is consistently incorrect.

I want the climate watchers to be ever vigilant. Constant observation is good.

 

[Persian Vol]

But you can't dispute it's displacing water. The water may recede an inch or a foot, who knows. The trash shouldn't be in there regardless.

There is a big difference between an inch or a foot in terms of how much trash is needed to elevate the entire planets ocean level. A large volume of trash in the ocean isn’t submerged, but floating on top of the water. Regardless I strongly doubt that there is enough trash on this planet that could be dumped and submerged into the ocean that could result in water elevation like you say. It sounds plausible at first but it really isn’t as plausible as you think it is. Don’t get me wrong, I absolutely agree that we need to stop littering the ocean. But for reasons other than water elevation.

 

[Wafflestomper]

Ok. Let's run with that. The explanation has its genesis from the best supporting evidence. However, the predictive accuracy which comes from the explanation and observational evidence is consistently incorrect.

I want the climate watchers to be ever vigilant. Constant observation is good.

I was speaking as someone who isn't a scientist trying to decide what to believe. Like I said though, predicting the future is far more difficult than analyzing the past. There are a whole lot of variables involved.

 

[82_VOL_83]

It seems counterintuitive, but this isn't so. Freshwater is less dense than saltwater, and thus has a greater volume than an equivalent weight of saltwater. Thus, when freshwater ice melts in the ocean, it contributes a greater volume of melt water than it originally displaced.

One does not follow from the other.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Then metrology and climatology aren't science.

Does that make meteorology and climatology = scientology? They are all ologies and none of them are science.

 

[82_VOL_83]

I'm not attempting to be argumentative here but you aren't helping your position of ACC with statements like these.
Qualifiers of uncertainty cannot exist if the science has gone through a rigorous scientific method. Those uncertainties would make reproduction of results impossible. If the data hasn't gone through the SM, i don't consider it science.
Climate change exists as observation and theory. That's really about it. It is very challenging to test global climate because of the complexity. Much like economics, imo. Both systems (climate and economics) are too complex to test as traditional hard science.
Still not worried one bit about climate change.

Translated, if you can't tell me what the weather is going to do with a reasonable amount of certainty next week, you cannot tell me what it's going to do 50 or 100 years from now.

 

[82_VOL_83]

By the same logic we should discard Christianity since many "experts" have been wrong in their predictions regarding Jesus' return. I'm not defending any predictions being made; I'm defending the more general claim of "this is happening."

If you want to prove the professionals wrong you ought to follow the same standards you hold them to. Do science which involves no uncertainty--I'll be glad to read your work when it's published. I mean no offense but most of you guys in here dont even know the difference between a colloquial theory and a scientific theory, yet you think you're in a position to call those who have a wealth of education and experience in the field wrong.


You should look up how we have historically "weighed" atoms (e.g., using a mass spectrometer); there is still uncertainty. So measuring atomic weights in this method isn't proven, and thus isn't the subject of true science, by your definition either. Does it only become science when we can eliminate all uncertainty? Do you know if the most contemporary methods have no uncertainty? Is it science if not? We still use mass spectrometers today; can we call this work science?

I guess what I'm getting at here is that I think your definition of what constitutes science is extremely narrow and atypical--almost nothing would be science if this is the standard.



I don't know how likely that is to happen but I'd think the problem is that everything--or almost everything--that lives in those climates will have a difficult time adjusting to such a radical change.

In the context of this discussion, this has to be one of the more stupid statements you have ever made.

 

[82_VOL_83]

It's where I was going with how much weight (displacement of water) is in the ocean. The sunken ships, planes, trash all raise water levels to some degree. Under water volcanoes that actually erupt and make new rock or islands will do the same also.

Salt or fresh?

 

[82_VOL_83]

I hardly disagree with the general point you are making (as we should not litter the planet), but sunken ships, planes, trash etc. seem like an extroradinly small volume in comparison to the overall volume of the ocean.

So you are saying we aren't making sea levels rise by floating more and more naval, commercial, and pleasure vessels? My boat alone displaces 10+ tons of water, there are millions of vessels larger than mine in the oceans. There's a math problem for you.