Alleged Man-made Climate Change Exemplifies What's Wrong with Science

originally posted by: C0bzz
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

How is that any different?
I don't think you understood his post.

CO2 is a GHG. Increasing CO2 will increase temperature. Increasing temperature will increase the CO2 which will increase temperature. This will continue in a loop until some other negative feedback prevents further warming.

Prove it! Show the empirical, experimental evidence with all of the variables at work in global climate? Not an experiment produced in a lab, because that does not follow the scientific method. Please demonstrate how the scientific method has shown that increasing CO2 increases global temperature, and show how increasing the global temperature directly relates to an increase in CO2? I'd love to see the global experiment that was conducted, the scientific method and process that was followed in said experiments, and the reproduced and undisputed, verified results of those experiments.

temperature increases led to an increase in foliage (trees, plants, etc) which would also naturally increase the CO2 output.

Pretty sure foliage absorbs CO2.

Pretty sure you're half right. Plants also emit about 50% of the CO2 they absorb, so more foliage will contribute to more CO2 production.

We should stop arguing about who is right or wrong, and just deal with the fact that our climate is going to change, and has, with or without our help, and we will always have to deal with the consequences

Nice appeal to ignorance. If we can prevent the change so we don't have to deal with the consequences, then why shouldn't we?

We can't prevent climate change. Anyone who believes that is willfully ignorant and extremely arrogant to think that we can. You have no control over the sun, no control over the tilt of the earth, no control over how much energy the oceans can absorb. To believe otherwise is a fairy tale. While we should certainly clean up after ourselves and not intentionally pollute the planet, the climate will change regardless of every effort we as a species take to try and stop it. It is an exercise in futility. We are coming up with amazing solutions, but to the wrong problems, and you are refusing to admit that.

~Namaste

a reply to: deloprator20000

" He said the pressure had mainly come from climate scientists in the US, including one employed by the US government (who threatened to withdraw as co-author of a forthcoming paper ) because of his link with the foundation. "



To withraw as co-author from a Published Scientic paper is a Serious Threat . It would put the Professor on a " Black List " of those who do not Mimic the Official Party Line . Sound Familiar Comrade ?

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne

originally posted by: C0bzz
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

How is that any different?

I don't think you understood his post.

CO2 is a GHG. Increasing CO2 will increase temperature. Increasing temperature will increase the CO2 which will increase temperature. This will continue in a loop until some other negative feedback prevents further warming.

temperature increases led to an increase in foliage (trees, plants, etc) which would also naturally increase the CO2 output.

Pretty sure foliage absorbs CO2.

Pretty sure you're half right. Plants also emit about 50% of the CO2 they absorb.

We should stop arguing about who is right or wrong, and just deal with the fact that our climate is going to change, and has, with or without our help, and we will always have to deal with the consequences

Nice appeal to ignorance. If we can prevent the change so we don't have to deal with the consequences, then why shouldn't we?

We can't prevent climate change. Anyone who believes that is willfully ignorant and extremely arrogant to think that we can. You have no control over the sun, no control over the tilt of the earth, no control over how much energy the oceans can absorb. To believe otherwise is a fairy tale.

~Namaste

Correct in that we have no control over the sun, the tilt of the earth or how much energy the oceans can absorb...except, and I hate to break this to you, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about MAN made Global Warming. Meaning the things that us humans have done to put us on an accelerated warming cycle. We can do something about that.

Namaste

Simply stating "we can't control the climate" without evidence or an argument to support it, is in itself arrogant. Now, I may agree we can't "control" the climate, BUT we may be able to affect the climate, in a negative fashion:

There is nothing we can do about Climate Change

C02 Does Cause Climate Change

C02 Rise isn't Natural

Spread the same graph across an entire wall, or zoom in on any 1000-2000 year range, and it's very clear that in almost every single case seen in history, the CO2 rises as a result of temperature changes.

Except for 1750 to present you mean?

Logically, that would make sense, since before humans were around, temperature increases led to an increase in foliage (trees, plants, etc) which would also naturally increase the CO2 output.

But again, this isn't considered by those looking to advance political agendas.

The difference is that this time the CO2 is being emitted by digging up and burning long-fossilized carbon. It's different this time because it's different.

The climate has changed all throughout history,

"history" in human terms means the period since written language and no climate has not globally faced any similar change of such magnitudes. Locally, powerful civilizations have gone extinct because of local climate change which was comparatively small. This is not reassuring.

before we were here, and we've had warmer periods of time in our recent history that didn't lead to some uncontrollable planetary devastation.

The planet will be fine, we won't be. None of them in the past have included 7 billion humans, and the warmer periods coincided with mass extinctions, and none ave included as sharp an increase in greenhouse forcing as today.

It's hard for me to believe that you would trust a forecast or prediction, given all of the past climate predictions that were completely false, given the inconsistent ability to predict weather in any localized area of the planet, and given the scandals that have already plagued the field of science around it.

The past climate predictions aren't false, weather prediction is much more accurate than chance and different than climate prediction, and there hasn't been any actual scandal with concrete evidence as opposed to imagining of scandal.

There are mountains of papers written on this, and I tend to take in all arguments and form my own conclusions. They all point to climate change being a natural event, CO2 as the only ubiquitous gas that CAN'T be prevented or stopped and blamed on humans, making it an indefinite tax stream, and the entire debate being politicized.

Climate change is a natural event, and can be an unnatural event if there are unnatural influences as there are now. And the increase in CO2 from 280 ppm to 400 and rising rapidly very assuredly is blamed on humans.

Science is not based on consensus. The IPCC and governments of the world are, and that's not science, it never will be. Science is based on predictability based on experimentation and observation, and not one single authority or scientist has, nor can they, PROVE any claim on climate change made yet because there is no reproducible and verifiable experiments that can be conducted on a planetary scale to measure changes in our climate.

And the same is true for astrophysics and geophysics and yet their results are highly predictive and accurate and accepted by people because they don't run into entrenched economic interests who don't like the consequences of the results.

Water vapor and clouds make up most of the atmosphere, create the most profound impacts to temperature changes and create most of the feedback loops you are talking about, NOT CO2. Should we get rid of clouds and rain?

That's a profoundly stupid argument. Dynamics of water are a central part of climatology and influence the climate sensitivity to long-term forcings like solar and greenhouse gases. It doesn't remove human responsibility one bit.

I used to put a lot of credit into papers that were written but have found them to be temporal in nature, and always contested by someone, somewhere, due to the sheer number of variables involved in climate. We should stop arguing about who is right or wrong, and just deal with the fact that our climate is going to change, and has, with or without our help, and we will always have to deal with the consequences.

That's another stupid argument, because the climate now is changing much faster and in less predictable ways because of direct human influence.

We could do everything "right" to not contribute to changes to the earth, but the earth will change all by itself, as will the sun. Why keep nit-picking at each other instead of preparing for what is inevitable?

The 'inevitable' might have taken 50,000 years instead of potentically collapsing technological civilization

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Plants also emit about 50% of the CO2 they absorb, so more foliage will contribute to more CO2 production.

Huh?
Using your figures, lets say a plant absorbs a kilogram of CO2. According to you it then emits half a kilogram, right? So that means there is half of the original amount of free CO2, right?

A million plants absorbs a million kilograms and emit half a million kilograms, meaning there is half a million kilograms removed from the atmosphere...using your figure.

Even using your figure, plants don't increase CO2 production.

a reply to: amazing

And I will keep saying it....

Prove that we are the cause. Show reproduced experiments that unequivocally show that humans are the cause. Show repeatable experiments that can be verified by any independent body of scientists or even amateurs, where the scientific process is used. Better yet, as I've mentioned already, show me one, just one, example of the scientific method being followed for global climate change and what contribution human's have made to it. Show me how there is not one, not any single shred of evidence, that could possibly prove that humans are NOT the cause of global climate change.

You can't. Nobody can. That's why it's a dead-end discussion. Until someone can PROVE, undeniable, and repeatedly, using the scientific method that brought us airplanes, physics, electronics and every other discovery that came from following that process, then I will believe it because it's no longer subjective at that point, it becomes objective and proven. Until then, it is an unproven theory, and consensus, neither of which qualify as science or scientifically proven.

~Namaste

a reply to: Phage

It's an approximation Phage, not an exact number. Some plants give more, some take more. It' not a zero-sum gain.

~Namaste

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

" He said the pressure had mainly come from climate scientists in the US, including one employed by the US government (who threatened to withdraw as co-author of a forthcoming paper ) because of his link with the foundation. "

What proof does he have to support that statement? Not to mention he can easily publish somewhere else, it may not have the prestige of the original journal, but you can still publish, so technically he isn't "black listed".

This is a new age because of the internet, you can publish and have the entire world read it. IF his ideas and theories are based on rigorous science and offer significant counterarguments against the current theory then eventually people will find out.

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne
Prove it! Show the empirical, experimental evidence with all of the variables at work in global climate? Not an experiment produced in a lab, because that does not follow the scientific method. Please demonstrate how the scientific method has shown that increasing CO2 increases global temperature,

The infrared emissivity from the atmosphere has been measured over time by balloons, aircraft and satellites, and correlates with the changes of atmospheric chemistry which are induced by human activity, and as predicted and verified by physical chemical properties of radiative transfer.

It is hence physically impossible for the climate NOT to change.

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

There is significant evidence supporting the theory that excessive C02 does indeed cause Global warming:

C02 does cause Climate Change

Now there may be a point that it is not repeatable, but then again the public really only has access to one earth.

a reply to: mbkennel

All of your points are speculative and subjective at best.

Again, I ask you to prove what you're saying by showing experimental evidence.

Astrophysics is a proven science based on observation and mathematical experimentation. You use math to predict where a planet will be and when, and if you observe it to be there, your prediction is correct. If that can be repeated by anyone else using the same formula, it is considered an observed fact and experimentally proven, thus following the scientific method.

CO2 has increased to levels far above where they are today and didn't create a runaway effect, so you are speculating that it is because of humans, yet has been higher in the past before humans were present. So the cause back then was T-Rex riding around in his Hummer?

Come on.... weather prediction is accurate??? I'm not sure where you're getting your facts from, but you didn't present one piece of factual information, just your own opinions and observations.

~Namaste

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne
You can't. Nobody can. That's why it's a dead-end discussion. Until someone can PROVE, undeniable, and repeatedly, using the scientific method that brought us airplanes, physics, electronics and every other discovery that came from following that process, then I will believe it because it's no longer subjective at that point, it becomes objective and proven.

It has been. You are emotionally motivated to deny the answer by demanding standards which are not applied to other fields of science which are entirely accepted.

The fact is that observable evidence is highly compatible with the understanding of greenhouse gases and the contributions by humans, and without this there is no way to explain the observed data successfully and there are no alternatives.

Can you PROVE that the Sun doesn't have a quintillion furiously mating hamsters at its core producing power instead of thermonuclear fusion? By your measure until we create a dozen stars we can't PROVE it.

Until then, it is an unproven theory, and consensus, neither of which qualify as science or scientifically proven.

Doesn't work that way. Science goes by what's the best available explanation now compared to the predictive and explanatory power of alternatives. When the data and understanding become very clear based on known standards of physics which in the past were extremely successful then you go with it.

Why did is the ozone hole start ameliorating itself? Because humans changed emissions, based on understanding of physics and climate.

Did we PROVE it would work that way by creating new Earths and hypothetically reduce CFC's in some and not the other to see what would happen? No, we went by laws of physics and chemistry and our understanding of them and it worked. As it works in all areas of geophysics.

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

It's an approximation Phage, not an exact number. Some plants give more, some take more. It' not a zero-sum gain.

Approximation or not, you said more plants means more CO2.
That is nonsense.

a reply to: deloprator20000

That entire argument in the link you provided is predicated on COMPUTER MODELS!!!!!

Those models are built by programmers feeding in the data that they HAVE, they do not account for every variable in the climate of the planet, and are constantly wrong. They are the same models that tell you it's going to be sunny on days that you need an umbrella, and that's just for a day or two out. They admit that once you go beyond a week, the models fall apart.... WHY IS THAT?? Because it's impossible to predict the weather more than a week out, yet, you believe that the same types of models, and the same people who create them, are going to get the weather right for the entire planet, for the next 100+ years?

Wow.... Ok guys, whatever helps you sleep better at night. You go ahead and keep fighting that fight about who is right or wrong and when the oceans will rise. I'll make sure I move somewhere that I don't have to care when they rise or how high since I know that no matter what I do, it will happen one way or another, with or without my carbon contributions. I hope you have deep pockets for shelling out your hard-earned money to pay taxes for breathing.

~Namaste

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

There are mountains of evidence:

Climate Change Evidence

These experiments are repeatable, you can design your own temperature sensing equipment and take readings throughout the world for several years. Then correctly process the data and show where the scientific community is wrong. Also, you have to somehow get access to the temperature in the past, you can look up data from past experiments, if you are skeptical of their ability to correctly monitor temperature, then look up the equipment they used and make absolutely sure that it was adequate to measure temperature in those conditions. Look up log records to make sure the equipment was functioning correctly. Then if at any time the equipment malfunctioned or was was mis-calibrated, let us know. If all equipment functioned correctly and was adequate to measure temperature, then correctly analyze the data and let us know exactly where the scientists went wrong?

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne
a reply to: mbkennel

All of your points are speculative and subjective at best.

Again, I ask you to prove what you're saying by showing experimental evidence.

Astrophysics is a proven science based on observation and mathematical experimentation. You use math to predict where a planet will be and when, and if you observe it to be there, your prediction is correct. If that can be repeated by anyone else using the same formula, it is considered an observed fact and experimentally proven, thus following the scientific method.

No different from climatology.

CO2 has increased to levels far above where they are today and didn't create a runaway effect, so you are speculating that it is because of humans, yet has been higher in the past before humans were present. So the cause back then was T-Rex riding around in his Hummer?

What difference does that make? If CO2 changed in the past over long periods of time from natural effects, then it can't change today because of unnatural effects which are much more rapid? Are the coal mines a Marxist fantasy?

It's like saying that a power saw can't possibly fell trees, because over there some trees fell down when they got old last year. And when scientists see a clear cut forest, with stumps with marks from saw blades, and a broken down logging truck, the denalists point to disease beetle dung and that there was a big forest fire in paleolithic times as reasons why humans can't be the primary cause. (And if forestry were the most profitable industry on the planet, and clearcutting trees might lead to catastrophic collapse of technological civilization in a few generations).

In actual fact, humans with power tools can do more felling in a few days than Nature does over decades. Same with CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

Come on.... weather prediction is accurate??? I'm not sure where you're getting your facts from, but you didn't present one piece of factual information, just your own opinions and observations.

Please deny ignorance. People who work on this for a living have done quantitative comparisons for half a century. What do you compare you baseline to? Weather prediction using physical observations and physical atmospheric models is much more accurate than that based on historical averages---this has been quantitatively measured for decades.

It's also theoretically known that there is some effective predictive limit on account of the positive Lyapunov exponents (chaos) in the atmosphere, in particular mid-latitude instability. The models are coming closer to achieving this limit---main barrier is accuracy of the input data.

Climate models are NOT predicting the same thing as weather models, and though there are some similarities.

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Those models are built by programmers feeding in the data that they HAVE, they do not account for every variable in the climate of the planet, and are constantly wrong.

And you have proof of this... how, exactly? Or are you merely rehearsing your own prejudices?

They are the same models that tell you it's going to be sunny on days that you need an umbrella, and that's just for a day or two out.

No they're not. Weather prediction ≠ climate science. I'm not sure how you managed to even confuse the two.

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Computer models aren't perfect, but neither are they useless. Though they cannot predict Exactly what the temperature or weather will be, they can give tightly controlled ranges of what is possible.

In any case the argument over global climate change may be a moot point. Given the finite amount of oil in the earth and the finite amount of production, eventually we will have to move away from massive oil consumption anyway.

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne
a reply to: Phage

It's an approximation Phage, not an exact number. Some plants give more, some take more. It' not a zero-sum gain.

~Namaste

In actual fact (as in this has been measured experimentally), plant growth reduces CO2 in the atmosphere as photosynthesis creates energy to create complex organic molecules so that plants grow. Their bodies contain carbon which used to be in the atmosphere. When they die, they are decomposed by bacteria (in the ground or in animals' intestines) which releases the carbon back in the atmosphere.

Where did the oil and coal come from? They used to be in plants in distant prehistoric times when atmospheric CO2 was higher---the algae and some plants buried in the ocean and soil and did NOT decompose for physical and biological reasons but were buried and turned into oil, gas and coal trapped in rocks.

Back then (I mean 50 to 200 million years ago, when the fossil fuels were formed, not the much more recent period with ice ages and interglacials and primates), certain bacteria today which can decompose wood had not evolved that ability. So as a result the excess CO2 was sequestered into what became now fossil fuels (and which should stay fossil non-fuels). Today, since bacteria have evolved that ability to decompose, that process won't ever repeat itself, and that carbon will go back into the atmosphere thanks to humans and never come back out. Back then, before the carbon was sequestered into the ground, it was extremely hot. There were alligators swimming in the Arctic. We're going back to that now. Except now the Sun is hotter than it was back then. You don't think that will have a catastrophic effect?


The prehistoric changes in CO2 occur from large scale geological chemistry effects its generally believed.