Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Wow, I guess physicists have nothing to say now about the "physics" of GHGs?....

It wasn't about the physics of GHGs, it was an attempt to refute a meteorological hypothesis with a thermodynamics argument. The scientific literature is littered with many failed attempts to show that something is impossible. A couple that I'll cite from The Daily Galaxy are

“If I had thought about it, I wouldn’t have done the experiment. The literature was full of examples that said you can’t do this.” — Spencer Silver on the work that led to the unique adhesives for 3-M “Post-It” Notepads.

“Space travel is bunk.” — Sir Harold Spencer Jones, Astronomer Royal of the UK, 1957 (two weeks later Sputnik orbited the Earth). Should of talked to an engineer I suppose.

“The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives.” — Admiral William Leahy, U.S. Atomic Bomb Project Too bad he wasn't a physicist.

This paper would have been a paper about the physics of GHG if it had been explanatory in nature but it is not. Obviously there is a legitimate need to understand the physics involved in meteorological models, but this just ain't it.

First of all that paper you gave comes from ONE physicist, meanwhile the other paper had two physicist... Someone wise enough once said two heads think better than one...

Are you seriously claiming that the quality of a published scientific paper depends on the number of authors??? What a load of rubbish! Serious scientists prefer to judge a paper based on the content rather than the number of authors or number of pages or how long the equations they use are.

Did anyone ever tell you what ASSUMING proves?.... That's what AGW claims are all about flawed assumptions made by people whose whole career depend on the survival of GCMs nomatter how flawed they are...

Yes you cited a place where the author stated his assumptions for a specific calculation. Due to the complexity of natural systems, we always make assumptions in the development of our models, and it is considered good science to state exactly what those assumptions are. Bad science is where we make assumptions and present them as established fact. As for the rest of your rant, it has absolutely no bearing on anything I stated and seems to be an attempt to use some form of an ad hominem argument to muddy the waters with political rhetoric. Sorry, not taking the troll bait

Originally posted by metamagic

Science is exact, scientists are not.

Really science is exact?.... Obviously you don't know much about science because science is ALWAYS EVOLVING..... Science is neither exact nor is it settled....

From the time of the Egyptians, or the ancient Chinese, or the Greeks til today science has EVOLVED quite a bit, and we keep learning new things, and we keep finding out things that once was thought impossible "because science said so" are more than possible.

This last bit of yours is the funniest part yet. First of all, learn the difference between the words "exact" and "static". Science being exact means that we strive or accuracy, precision and to quantify that which we are working with. We strive to follow a set of rules about inference, deduction and proof that allow us to work productively within a paradigm. Scientists, on the other hand often fall short of ideal of scientific exactness for a variety of reasons, one of which is applying the exactness of the scientific method to phenomena that it should not.. You claim that science is not exact because it is evolving is totally nonsensical, science is evolving because it is exact.

And a final delicious bit of irony, you last line we keep finding out things that once was thought impossible "because science said so" are more than possible. proves exactly my original point... climate change is not impossible just because some scientist said so.

Thank you for an entertaining morning Electric.

I would really like to see an answer to a very simple question, just how does %0.004 of the atmosphere( thats rounded up) (CO2, thats 383 parts per million) heat up the other %99.006?
All the blogs I go on, never get an answer, I have read that Methane holds 20 times more heat than CO2, but it hardly gets a mention, or water vapour.

kinda sick of this discussion now , regardless of whether man has an effect on global warming , we are still needlessly polluting our planet for profit !

and thats the bottom line because mother earth said so

This is entertaining!

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Your point seems to be that you are trying to refute this by making a claim which really refutes nothing, and has nothing to do with the thread. I have worked with scientists of many different fields and I have valued their opinions as they have valued mine, but that doesn't prove anything at all does it?

Oh but it has everything to do with the thread. You presented a paper which you are using to support your belief that climate change can't happen on scientific grounds and that makes questions the validity of the your arguments and proof quite relevant. If you are going to play the science game, then you can't make methodological issues go away by waving your hands and saying they are not relevant. And by the way, methodological questions do not "refute" anything, they merely call into question the errors that may have been made in arriving at a particular conclusion.

Further, valuing opinions has nothing to do with science. You seem to keep confusing the human foibles of scientists with the principles of science.

Well, i guess your point must be then not to trust anyone who dares to argue against models which are based on flawed assumptions...
Actually i have to say beware of those who would tell you not to believe scientists just because they, and their research happens to disagree with "standard models".

No, not at all what I said, that is your illogical and erroneous assumption. One should always argue against models with flawed assumptions, actually we call that science. Disagreements with standard models are routine, I guess you don't really follow science that closely or you would know that. My warning was that a scientist in one paradigm, let's say chemistry, generally is not going to make valid critiques of another field's paradigm, astrophysics say, unless that also understand the paradigm that they are critiquing In particular I pointed out that scientists who switch fields are different because they can bring their insights into a field of study and are better at detecting those flawed assumptions,

It isn't just a single piece of paper. There are hundreds of peer-reviewed research papers, and thousands of scientists who have shown and or state AGW is a lie. A lie that is as dead as Mann's Hockey Stick graph.

Then we have the leaked emails, the several errors that the IPCC had to concede recently they based their claims on, and the fact that nature itself has shown AGW is a lie.

Now you are ranting. You are prepared to accept without question any paper that supports your belief or that calls anyone who argues against your belief a liar. So I'm calling you on it. Prove it. You state that there are hundreds of peer reviewed research papers that call climate change a lie. For economy, list 20 research papers (not opinion pieces) that call climate change a lie, complete with the citation from the peer reviewed journals (not those published or financed by special interest groups like lobby groups). Remember, they have to state that it is a lie. Put up or shut up.

As i said above there is more than just this paper, and btw should people be impressed by your statements that "you have worked with both types of scientists" and take this claim of yours as proof that AGW is true?

I can't even begin to imagine the jump of illogic you made here. You don't even know my position on AGW and yet you just assume that I'm trying to prove it true. Again, another challenge to you -- at what point in any post in this thread have I made that claim or made a statement in support of that claim? Unless you can show me, stop putting words in my mouth and stick to commenting only on what I say, not on what you fantasize about me.

Originally posted by melatonin
So, science is exact, scientists are not. Science is logical and has no ego, scientists are not and do have 'em.

Caveat discipulus.

Uh oh.. are you fiddling with sources here? I'm not melatonin.

No offense, but I have a hard time believing you have worked with scientists and yet you claim "science is exact"...

Science is not exact, science is always evolving because at the end science is but the estimated guess of a human who is flawed just because he/she is human.

Computer models are made by men, or women, and like humans computer models are flawed, and this is a fact that several peer-reviewed research has shown.

You beliefs about me personally have nothing to do with my augments..but lets go to the last comment you make above about flawed models.

You mean like the models you are presenting to refute global warming? Intellectual honesty demands that you apply the same standards of proof to both sides of the argument.

Guess you didn't read my post, or maybe you read it and didn't understand it. You really need to understand what models are before you spout this nonsense. Yes science is an estimated guess, which is why we need exactness. Anyone who does science understands that models are always an approximation of the phenomena we are modeling, and it is our holding exactness as a principle that allows us to refine our models. That is why scientists talk about the "fit" of a model to the data.

Flaws are errors a very different thing than how closely a model fits the data or the explanatory power of a model.

Would you like me to recommend some reading material?




[edit on 28-1-2010 by metamagic]

[edit on 28-1-2010 by metamagic]

Lots of stars to the posters who jumped on this article as the nonsense that it is.
Just wanted to say nice work!

Originally posted by pikestaff
I would really like to see an answer to a very simple question, just how does %0.004 of the atmosphere( thats rounded up) (CO2, thats 383 parts per million) heat up the other %99.006?
All the blogs I go on, never get an answer, I have read that Methane holds 20 times more heat than CO2, but it hardly gets a mention, or water vapour.

Also, how does a virus, basically taking a fraction of a bodys mass, end up killing a person...its soo small...this logic also dismisses viruses as potentially deadly.

Never underestimate the impact of something simply because its smaller than the rest of the system...

Methane is also a greenhouse gas, yes...and potentially causes equal if not more of the global issue over time than man does...we certainly are not helping the problem, and even the most extreme agenda to curb our emmissions will do almost nothing to help the planet...extend it a few years, sure...but the catastrophe will not be averted with any measures put in place today.

time to invent new atmospheric scrubbers to help balance the ecosystem and nullify our impact...along with keep it in a place that is most beneficial towards our life and the rest of the furrys.

I believe in the science behind C.D., however I laugh at the solutions...cap and trade is a farce...it will do nothing....moving to solar energy? sure...someone give me 250k so I can put them on my house and go oil free...its all bullocks. Progress and natural cycle got us into this mess, and technological innovation will be the only way to get us out...time to invent a high tech highly efficient tree.

Originally posted by ventian
No one seems to have the ba**s to say it so I will. Those two guys may be just a handful of scientists we have left. Science is about disproving theories in order to prove theories. This whole global warming thing has destroyed the scientific communities credibility. These so called scientists (for funding) have continually tried to prove global warming. They immediately jumped on board in order to please TPTB and line their pockets. Flame me and say I am wrong but it doesn't change the fact that most of the leading "scientists" aren't expanding our knowledge, they are expanding their wallets.

Seconded.

Their careers rely on recieved wisdom. They have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, whether it is correct or not. I see parallels here with the field of egyptology and the dogma of the classical eyptologists.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Also, how does a virus, basically taking a fraction of a bodys mass, end up killing a person...its soo small...this logic also dismisses viruses as potentially deadly.

Never underestimate the impact of something simply because its smaller than the rest of the system...

you got that right.. once I warmed up a mansion with 14 rooms by use of a single light-bulb

[edit on 28-1-2010 by Ionut]

[edit on 28-1-2010 by Ionut]

Originally posted by Ionut

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Also, how does a virus, basically taking a fraction of a bodys mass, end up killing a person...its soo small...this logic also dismisses viruses as potentially deadly.

Never underestimate the impact of something simply because its smaller than the rest of the system...

you got that right.. once I warmed up a mansion with 14 rooms by use of a single light-bulb

[edit on 28-1-2010 by Ionut]

[edit on 28-1-2010 by Ionut]

If you are implying that the earth is like a mansion and then SUN is a light bulb, then this is a seriously flawed analogy.

-rrr

A 'climate scientist' is one who studies climate specifically. Physicists can study climate, and when they do, they are called climate scientists.

All of the arguments that belittle these two scientists as out-of-their-element are bunk.

Who would you believe? A physicist or a climate scientist? But what if the physicists were also climate scientists? One needs more information than they are wrong because it is not their field of study, when, in fact, it is exactly what they are studying.

As for scientists acting like someone they aren't, why don't climate scientists and Al Gore stop acting like economists and why don't economists stop acting like politicians.

The question isn't, "Does climate change exist"? It is "What is the most prudent form of action that we could take if climate change exists or not"? You will find the answer for the latter question is the same regardless of climate changes validity.

Originally posted by DINSTAAR

The question isn't, "Does climate change exist"? It is "What is the most prudent form of action that we could take if climate change exists or not"? You will find the answer for the latter question is the same regardless of climate changes validity.

A very good point. Well said.