Dear climate change nonbelievers

[Deuce]

Yes, but not infinitely.

Oh, gee, thanks Bman. Thanks for pointing out that CO2 can't raise the Earth's temperature to infinity. I'm so relieved, because I was really worried about hitting infinity degrees.

Without any consideration of any other influencing variable...

We can't control the sun or the Earth's orbit, but we can control our emissions of CO2.

I'm not convinced the case for this, but we are adding a sizable amount of co2, that much goes without saying.

Isotope ratios show this conclusively. CO2 released from exhalation or a wildfire has a different isotope ratio than CO2 from fossil fuels. This can be measured.

And co2 increases have always lagged behind temperature increases by centuries.

Not this time.

yes, and this list AT BEST shows that co2 is a warming influence on the climate. This says absolutely nothing about this warming influence leading to ANYTHING that suggests a problem in any way.

That is the extent to where the climate science has had ANYTHING to offer, and beyond that there is nothing that has been put forth that cannot be shown to be any less than an exaggeration, to at worst, outright frauds.

I'm sorry, were you under the impression that this list was comprehensive? Because when I said "the list goes on and on," I thought I'd made it clear that there was more to it than that. I'm not even going to bother any more with your handwaving of "IT'S ALL FRAUD." Show that it is fraud, or nobody cares.

It is evidence that increasing atmospheric CO2 is an effect, not a cause, of warming temperatures.

I take it you're unfamiliar with the concept of a feedback.

 

[Diogenes]

****ing pathetic.

Tell ya what Diogenes, when you actually get some sort of proof that disporves what I typed, I'll concede.

Until then, continue blathering about things you clearly know nothing about. I could use the laugh.

Speaking of pathetic, have you actually read any of the sources cited in your post #289 or did you just mechanically cut and paste the article from somewhere? Part of your post is

The Black Death caused a decrease in the human populations of Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East during the 14th century and a consequent decline in agricultural activity. A similar effect occurred in North America after European contact in the 16th century. Ruddiman (2003) suggests reforestation took place as a result of this reduced human population and agricultural activity, allowing more carbon dioxide uptake from the atmosphere to the biosphere, thus having a cooling effect. Ruddiman concluded as follows.

Now if you had actually read Ruddiman's book, you would know that he offers this as a hypothesis only and concedes that practically nothing is known of the response time between cause and effect. Ruddiman's thesis is that there is AGW but the primary cause is agriculture, beginning some five to seven thousand years ago, and the warming is a consequence of the methane produced by agriculture, an extreme example being the rice paddies of southeast Asia. Ruddiman dismisses CO2 as of little consequence; it's no big deal if the flowers bloom a week or two earlier and the snow comes a week or two later in the year.

Ruddiman is actually one of the more credible voices in the warming discussion, not least because he places things in context: the earth has been cooling since it was formed several billion years ago, the heat from the core has been gradually dissipating, the first permanent ice cap formed only a few million years ago, the first ice age was only two or three million years ago, it has only been about a million years since the ice ages fell into a repetitive pattern of about 90,000 years which correlate to astronomical cycles which have been known since the mid-nineteenth century, and so on. He also notes that the MWP and the LIA were preceded by a similar cycle of warm climate during the first few centuries BC and the cold period of the Dark Ages, which indicate the existence of another climate cycle which is only now being recognized and which is not understood. Adding to his credibility is his calm scientific approach which suggests possible explanations, rather that the thundering prophecies of the Goristas which threaten the world with eternal damnation if we don't instantly slaughter the horses.

 

[Deuce]

Speaking of pathetic, have you actually read any of the sources cited in your post #289 or did you just mechanically cut and paste the article from somewhere? Part of your post is



Now if you had actually read Ruddiman's book, you would know that he offers this as a hypothesis only and concedes that practically nothing is known of the response time between cause and effect. Ruddiman's thesis is that there is AGW but the primary cause is agriculture, beginning some five to seven thousand years ago, and the warming is a consequence of the methane produced by agriculture, an extreme example being the rice paddies of southeast Asia. Ruddiman dismisses CO2 as of little consequence; it's no big deal if the flowers bloom a week or two earlier and the snow comes a week or two later in the year.

Ruddiman is actually one of the more credible voices in the warming discussion, not least because he places things in context: the earth has been cooling since it was formed several billion years ago, the heat from the core has been gradually dissipating, the first permanent ice cap formed only a few million years ago, the first ice age was only two or three million years ago, it has only been about a million years since the ice ages fell into a repetitive pattern of about 90,000 years which correlate to astronomical cycles which have been known since the mid-nineteenth century, and so on. He also notes that the MWP and the LIA were preceded by a similar cycle of warm climate during the first few centuries BC and the cold period of the Dark Ages, which indicate the existence of another climate cycle which is only now being recognized and which is not understood. Adding to his credibility is his calm scientific approach which suggests possible explanations, rather that the thundering prophecies of the Goristas which threaten the world with eternal damnation if we don't instantly slaughter the horses.

You've never even read a scientific paper on the subject, have you? Thundering prophecies my ass. Guess what, genius? Al Gore isn't a scientist. Not exactly comparing apples to apples now, are you?

 

[Jredbaron96]

This is what happens when libs are confronted with facts, they melt down.

Coming from the guy who's main defense is "I don't care", I find this laughable.

 

[Jredbaron96]

It is evidence that increasing atmospheric CO2 is an effect, not a cause, of warming temperatures.

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about:

First off, we've increased the amout of CO2 in the air by about 40% in the last 150 years.

Secondly,

Figure 1: Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere over both the last 1000 years and the preceding 400,000 years as measured in ice coresAs a greenhouse gas, this increase in atmospheric CO2 increases the amount of downward longwave radiation from the atmosphere, including towards the Earth's surface.Surface measurements of downward longwave radiation

The increase in atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases has increased the amount of infrared radiation absorbed and re-emitted by these molecules in the atmosphere. The Earth receives energy from the Sun in the form of visible light and ultraviolet radiation, which is then re-radiated away from the surface as thermal radiation in infrared wavelengths. Some of this thermal radiation is then absorbed by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and re-emitted in all directions, some back downwards, increasing the amount of energy bombarding the Earth's surface. This increase in downward infrared radiation has been observed through spectroscopy, which measures changes in the electromagnetic spectrum.Figure 2: Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).Satellite measurements of outgoing longwave radiation

The increased greenhouse effect is also confirmed by NASA's IRIS satellite and the Japanese Space Agency's IMG satellite observing less longwave leaving the Earth's atmosphere.

Figure 3: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).The increased energy reaching the Earth's surface from the increased greenhouse effect causes it to warm. So how do we quantify the amount of warming that it causes?Radiative Transfer Models

Radiative transfer models use fundamental physical equations and observations to translate this increased downward radiation into a radiative forcing, which effectively tells us how much increased energy is reaching the Earth's surface. Studies have shown that these radiative transfer models match up with the observed increase in energy reaching the Earth's surface with very good accuracy (Puckrin 2004). Scientists can then derive a formula for calculating the radiative forcing based on the change in the amount of each greenhouse gas in the atmosphere (Myhre 1998). Each greenhouse gas has a different radiative forcing formula, but the most important is that of CO2:dF = 5.35 ln(C/C[SUB]o[/SUB])Where 'dF' is the radiative forcing in Watts per square meter, 'C' is the concentration of atmospheric CO2[SUB], [/SUB]and 'C[SUB]o[/SUB]' is the reference CO2concentration. Normally the value of C[SUB]o[/SUB] is chosen at the pre-industrial concentration of 280 ppmv.Now that we know how to calculate the radiative forcing associated with an increase in CO2[SUB], [/SUB]how do we determine the associated temperature change?Climate sensitivity

As the name suggests, climate sensitivity is an estimate of how sensitive the climate is to an increase in a radiative forcing. The climate sensitivity value tells us how much the planet will warm or cool in response to a given radiative forcing change. As you might guess, the temperature change is proportional to the change in the amount of energy reaching the Earth's surface (the radiative forcing), and the climate sensitivity is the coefficient of proportionality:dT = λ*dFWhere 'dT' is the change in the Earth's average surface temperature, 'λ' is the climate sensitivity, usually with units in Kelvin or degrees Celsius per Watts per square meter (°C/[W/m2]), and 'dF' is the radiative forcing.So now to calculate the change in temperature, we just need to know the climate sensitivity. Studies have given a possible range of values of 2-4.5°C warming for a doubling of CO2 (IPCC 2007). Using these values it's a simple task to put the climate sensitivity into the units we need, using the formulas above:λ = dT/dF = dT/(5.35 * ln[2])= [2 to 4.5°C]/3.7 = 0.54 to 1.2°C/(W/m2)Using this range of possible climate sensitivity values, we can plug λ into the formulas above and calculate the expected temperature change. The atmospheric CO2 concentration as of 2010 is about 390 ppmv. This gives us the value for 'C', and for 'C[SUB]o[/SUB]' we'll use the pre-industrial value of 280 ppmv.dT = λ*dF = λ * 5.35 * ln(390/280) = 1.8 * λPlugging in our possible climate sensitivity values, this gives us an expected surface temperature change of about 1–2.2°C of global warming, with a most likely value of 1.4°C. However, this tells us the equilibrium temperature. In reality it takes a long time to heat up the oceans due to their thermal inertia. For this reason there is currently a planetary energy imbalance, and the surface has only warmed about 0.8°C. In other words, even if we were to immediately stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere, the planet would warm another ~0.6°C until it reached this new equilibrium state (confirmed by Hansen 2005). This is referred to as the 'warming in the pipeline'.Of course this is just the temperature change we expect to observe from the CO2 radiative forcing. Humans cause numerous other radiative forcings, both positive (e.g. other greenhouse gases) and negative (e.g. sulfate aerosols which block sunlight). Fortunately, the negative and positive forcings are roughly equal and cancel each other out, and the natural forcings over the past half century have also been approximately zero (Meehl 2004), so the radiative forcing from CO2 alone gives us a good estimate as to how much we expect to see the Earth's surface temperature change.

Figure 4: Global average radiative forcing in 2005 (best estimates and 5 to 95% uncertainty ranges) with respect to 1750 (IPCC AR4).We can also calculate the most conservative possible temperature change in response to the CO2 increase. Some climate scientists who are touted as 'skeptics' have suggested the actual climate sensitivity could be closer to 1°C for a doubling of CO2, or 0.27°C/(W/m2). Although numerous studies have ruled out climate sensitivity values this low, it's worth calculating how much of a temperature change this unrealistically low value would generate. Using the same formulas as above,dT = 1.8 * λ = 1.8 * 0.27 = 0.5°C.Therefore, even under this ultra-conservative unrealistic low climate sensitivity scenario, the increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past 150 years would account for over half of the observed 0.8°C increase in surface temperature.Conservation of Energy

Huber and Knutti (2011) published a paper in Nature Geoscience, Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth’s energy balance. They take an approach in this study which utilizes the principle of conservation of energy for the global energy budget using the measurements discussed above, and summarize their methodology:

"We use a massive ensemble of the Bern2.5D climate model of intermediate complexity, driven by bottom-up estimates of historic radiative forcing F, and constrained by a set of observations of the surface warming T since 1850 and heat uptake Q since the 1950s....Between 1850 and 2010, the climate system accumulated a total net forcing energy of 140 x 10[SUP]22[/SUP] J with a 5-95% uncertainty range of 95-197 x 10[SUP]22[/SUP] J, corresponding to an average net radiative forcing of roughly 0.54 (0.36-0.76)Wm[SUP]-2[/SUP]."​

Essentially, Huber and Knutti take the estimated global heat content increase since 1850, calculate how much of the increase is due to various estimated radiative forcings, and partition the increase between increasing ocean heat content and outgoing longwave radiation. The authors note that more than 85% of the global heat uptake (Q) has gone into the oceans, including increasing the heat content of the deeper oceans, although their model only accounts for the upper 700 meters.Figure 3 is a similar graphic to that presented in Meetah, et al 2004) comparing the average global surface warming simulated by the model using natural forcings only (blue), anthropogenic forcings only (red), and the combination of the two (gray).Figure 3: Time series of anthropogenic and natural forcings contributions to total simulated and observed global temperature change. The coloured shadings denote the 5-95% uncertainty range.
ate scientists have indeed quantified the anthropogenic contribution to global warming using empirical observations and fundamental physical equations.

 

[marduc]

Testable hypothesis: Cold water dissolves more CO2 than warm water does. As the world warms from the Little Ice Age, more CO2 is released from the oceans. CO2 is a lagging indicator of global temperature.

This is assuming the oceans are at or near the saturation point for CO2, they are not at the saturation point, but rather equilibrium with atmospheric levels. There is plenty of room for the ocean to absorb CO2 still without a need to release it to the atmosphere to maintain equilibrium.

edit to clarify: warmer water will not release CO2 into the atmosphere (as you stated) until it approaches the saturation point, it just makes water less effective at dissolving more.

 

[Jredbaron96]

It is evidence that increasing atmospheric CO2 is an effect, not a cause, of warming temperatures.

PART II

In Figure 4, Huber and Knutti break down the anthropogenic and natural forcings into their individual components to quantify the amount of warming caused by each since the 1850s (Figure 4b), 1950s (4c), and projected from 2000 to 2050 using the IPCC SRES A2 emissions scenario as business-as-usual (4d).



Figure 4: Contributions of individual forcing agents to the total decadal temperature change for three time periods. Error bars denote the 5–95% uncertainty range. The grey shading shows the estimated 5–95% range for internal variability based on the CMIP3 climate models. Observations are shown as dashed lines.

As expected, Huber and Knutti find that greenhouse gases contributed to substantial warming since 1850, and aerosols had a significant cooling effect:

"Greenhouse gases contributed 1.31°C (0.85-1.76°C) to the increase, that is 159% (106-212%) of the total warming. The cooling effect of the direct and indirect aerosol forcing is about -0.85°C (-1.48 to -0.30°C). The warming induced by tropospheric ozone and solar variability are of similar size (roughly 0.2°C). The contributions of stratospheric water vapour and ozone, volcanic eruptions, and organic and black carbon are small."

Since 1950, the authors find that greenhouse gases contributed 166% (120-215%) of the observed surface warming (0.85°C of 0.51°C estimated surface warming). The percentage is greater than 100% because aerosols offset approximately 44% (0.45°C) of that warming.

"It is thus extremely likely (>95% probability) that the greenhouse gas induced warming since the mid-twentieth century was larger than the observed rise in global average temperatures, and extremely likely that anthropogenic forcings were by far the dominant cause of warming. The natural forcing contribution since 1950 is near zero."

A number of studies have used a variety of statistical and physical approaches to determine the contribution of greenhouse gases and other effects to the observed global warming, like Huber and Knutti. And like Huber and Knutti, they find that greenhouse gases have caused more warming than has been observed, because other factors have had a net cooling effect over the past century (Figure 5).



Figure 5: Greenhouse gas contribution to global warming according to various peer-reviewed attribution studies

 

[Jredbaron96]

You've never even read a scientific paper on the subject, have you?

Evidently not.

 

[Deuce]

Evidently not.

He keeps ranting about REAL SCIENCE and then references Al Gore. I mean, what do you say to somebody like that?

Look, people, I know the media loves to play up things like this. They made up the "IMPENDING ICE AGE" thing in the 70's because it sells. They play up what climate scientists publish because actual science is actually really dull for most people. But that's the media. You need to learn to tell when the media is exaggerating or misunderstanding things. (which is often, when it comes to science) The best way is to just read the paper the media is referencing, a good journalist will give you enough information to find that paper. (author name, journal published in, etc.)

Your picture of scientific discourse should come from science, not journalists, politicians, or spokesmen.

 

[Somerville]

Your picture of scientific discourse should come from science, not journalists, politicians, or spokesmen.

addenda to the list of who not to listen to in matters of climate: economists (Ross McKitrick, Ben Stein) or statisticians (Stephen McIntyre. Edward Wegman) or energy company employees (Stephen McIntyre, David Wojick, Patrick Michaels)

 

[Matt Foley]

addenda to the list of who not to listen to in matters of climate: economists (Ross McKitrick, Ben Stein) or statisticians (Stephen McIntyre. Edward Wegman) or energy company employees (Stephen McIntyre, David Wojick, Patrick Michaels)

In addition to: Communists, climate change scientists who get most of their funding for creating the most sensationalist predictions, Greens who are biased, Democrats who are biased, and out of spite Newt Gingrich for appearing with Pelosi in an propaganda piece.

 

[Somerville]

In addition to: Communists, climate change scientists who get most of their funding for creating the most sensationalist predictions, Greens who are biased, Democrats who are biased, and out of spite Newt Gingrich for appearing with Pelosi in an propaganda piece.

Really don't care to admit the fallacy of your beliefs, 'cause they sure ain't facts.

 

[Deuce]

In addition to: Communists, climate change scientists who get most of their funding for creating the most sensationalist predictions, Greens who are biased, Democrats who are biased, and out of spite Newt Gingrich for appearing with Pelosi in an propaganda piece.

Also:

John McCain, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Tim Pawlenty, supporting cap and trade as a market-based solution to the serious issue that is man-made climate change.... and then later reversing their opinions the second a Democrat got elected.

Every radio talk show host.

Hugh Jackman.

It's funny, you dismiss peer-reviewed science because the scientists get paid. Do you also vehemently oppose everything else science comes up with? I mean, they all got paid too.

 

[Diogenes]

In addition to: Communists, climate change scientists who get most of their funding for creating the most sensationalist predictions, Greens who are biased, Democrats who are biased, and out of spite Newt Gingrich for appearing with Pelosi in an propaganda piece.

Very true. There's apparently a lot of money to be made in the doomsaying business, and it doesn't seem possible to carry on a rational discussion with fanatical True Believers who drink the koolaid.

 

[Deuce]

Very true. There's apparently a lot of money to be made in the doomsaying business, and it doesn't seem possible to carry on a rational discussion with fanatical True Believers who drink the koolaid.

See, you keep talking about REAL SCIENCE but then you just regurgitate exactly what Rush Limbaugh would say.

You aren't here for rational discussion of science, because if you were you wouldn't make posts like this one. If you'd ever read any real science, you'd be quite aware that "doomsaying" is not an accurate description of what the scientists write.

Tell you what: Find a published paper in a peer-reviewed science journal that you think constitutes "doomsaying" or whatever catchphrase you're on today. Post it here. Not a blog. Not an article from a journalist. Real science, that you claim to be interested in. Let me know what it is you are taking issue with, because when you never post examples there's really nothing to argue against.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Oh, gee, thanks Bman. Thanks for pointing out that CO2 can't raise the Earth's temperature to infinity. I'm so relieved, because I was really worried about hitting infinity degrees.

Naturally, you missed the point again...

The point was that even with 100% co2 in the atmosphere the temperature would not increase the equivalent 4000X. Even then, long before that point the only REAL concern of co2 would be achieved, that being that the air would become toxic.

I'll go back to the main question (that was answered a single time, that only matched the data for a single year 150 years ago, and from the point on exaggerated co2s impact on the climate compared to the measured data.). What is the climate temperature going to be at X concentration of co2?

We can't control the sun or the Earth's orbit, but we can control our emissions of CO2.

Oh, so even if co2 were of a negligible impact, then it's more important that we take control over co2 then do nothing because we can actually control a small variable in what impacts the climate.

That's a pretty big stretch for barely being able to demonstrate the drastic impacts being claimed.

Isotope ratios show this conclusively. CO2 released from exhalation or a wildfire has a different isotope ratio than CO2 from fossil fuels. This can be measured.

That much I get, and was not the area that I have issue with... But as I said, this one is a lesser issue since I'm not really denying how much co2 is being produced.

Though, you have yet to demonstrated that by creating co2 luxury tax laws, that the focus would distinguish exclusively towards co2 from fossil fuels... Especially in the face of the ways that farmers in many areas are now being told that the dust raised by farm equipment is just as much a pollutant that needs to be controlled as the co2 the engine produces.

Not this time.



I'm sorry, were you under the impression that this list was comprehensive? Because when I said "the list goes on and on," I thought I'd made it clear that there was more to it than that. I'm not even going to bother any more with your handwaving of "IT'S ALL FRAUD." Show that it is fraud, or nobody cares.

A) I never said that your list was conclusive, more that your list was a bunch of hot air.

B) I didn't say it's all fraud. I can't say that because many times these "scientists" only exaggerate.... Let's not go over the list of green failures again, because that usually leads to a hissy fit on your part in trying to admit that admissions of fraud actually mean something that's not fraudulent but expected.

I take it you're unfamiliar with the concept of a feedback.

Oh, so your co2 will feedback ad infinitum... You were just Saying that this was not the case.

Seriously, yes, there are such things as feedback loops... But there's also concepts that you seem to want to ignore concerning that feedback loops are of diminishing returns.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Also:

John McCain, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Tim Pawlenty, supporting cap and trade as a market-based solution to the serious issue that is man-made climate change.... and then later reversing their opinions the second a Democrat got elected.

Every radio talk show host.

Hugh Jackman.

It's funny, you dismiss peer-reviewed science because the scientists get paid. Do you also vehemently oppose everything else science comes up with? I mean, they all got paid too.

It's not the matter of these people getting paid; it's the issue of the WHO is paying them and the interests of those people / groups footing the bill for this mainly quack science, with just enough truth to it to fool the weak minded and children into believing that puppies will drown because mommy drives an suv.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Very true. There's apparently a lot of money to be made in the doomsaying business, and it doesn't seem possible to carry on a rational discussion with fanatical True Believers who drink the koolaid.

I wish these people were just simple con artists... That would be bad enough. No, these greenies want to fundamentally alter our society to suit their green agendas... And here's a hint : if you are not among the ultra-rich, this agenda is not in anyone's best interest.

 

[American]

Find me one liberal who has said "China should not decrease their pollution." Just one. Your entire premise is false. News flash: Sometimes Americans talk about American policy without mentioning Not-American policy.

Show one post by you, condemning the Chinese, just one.

 

[Diogenes]

See, you keep talking about REAL SCIENCE but then you just regurgitate exactly what Rush Limbaugh would say.

See, you keep talking about REAL SCIENCE but then you just regurgitate exactly what Al Gore would say.

You aren't here for rational discussion of science, because if you were you wouldn't make posts like this one. If you'd ever read any real science, you'd be quite aware that bad computer models and "hockey stick" graphs, even with the reported values added in to hide the real data as suggested by the Climategate memos, just won't cut it any more.

 

[Matt Foley]

Also:

John McCain, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Tim Pawlenty, supporting cap and trade as a market-based solution to the serious issue that is man-made climate change.... and then later reversing their opinions the second a Democrat got elected.

Yeah

Every radio talk show host.

Hugh Jackman.

It's funny, you dismiss peer-reviewed science because the scientists get paid. Do you also vehemently oppose everything else science comes up with? I mean, they all got paid too.

Newton invented calculus, optics, and theory of gravity without pee review.
Maxwell created the electromagnetic equations without pee review.
Thermodynamics was invented without pee review.
The steam engine was invented without pee review.
The mass production assembly line was invented without pee review.

Pee Review is a 1970's invention by the morally degraded modern academia.

Really don't care to admit the fallacy of your beliefs, 'cause they sure ain't facts.

...but I guess that's what happens when you turn science into a religion for the irreligious.

 

[Jredbaron96]

See, you keep talking about REAL SCIENCE but then you just regurgitate exactly what Al Gore would say.

You aren't here for rational discussion of science, because if you were you wouldn't make posts like this one. If you'd ever read any real science, you'd be quite aware that bad computer models and "hockey stick" graphs, even with the reported values added in to hide the real data as suggested by the Climategate memos, just won't cut it any more.

If you're so sure that we're lying, then certainly you'd have no problem proving us wrong.

 

[Somerville]

Yeah



Newton invented calculus, optics, and theory of gravity without pee review.
Maxwell created the electromagnetic equations without pee review.
Thermodynamics was invented without pee review.
The steam engine was invented without pee review.
The mass production assembly line was invented without pee review.

Pee Review is a 1970's invention by the morally degraded modern academia.



...but I guess that's what happens when you turn science into a religion for the irreligious.

The more you post on this subject, the more you reveal your ignorance.

Newton and some guy by the name of Leibniz developed calculus from the work of earlier investigators. Leibniz is given credit for the system of notations that is still used in calculus, Newton was a bit self-centered and used a rather idiosyncratic personal style in working on his equations.

The study of optics goes much further back in history than Newton. Isaac developed a new method for checking the quality of lenses and also invented the reflecting telescope but his work was built on centuries of investigation.

Yes, Isaac Newton did lay down what we now know as the Newtonian Gravitational Laws but he also was willing to give credit to those who had looked at the problems which his Laws finally explained when he said, "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."

James Clerk Maxwell did lay out the four equations that are used to describe electrodynamics but as with Newton, he relied upon the work of earlier researchers, people like Wilhelm Eduard Weber, Rudolf Kohlrausch, Michael Faraday and André-Marie Ampère

The science of thermodynamics was developed over several centuries by multiple investigators working with the clues and data provided by their predecessors.

The point of the foregoing being that though what we now call "peer review" wasn't in place, a similar process was in common usage in that community of those we now credit as early scientists, the men who refused to accept that ancient, accepted ideas necessarily provided answers to the actions they saw taking place in the natural world. Those early students of the natural world published their thoughts and findings and then their contemporaries looked at the papers and either attacked or accepted the work. Peer review today most often takes place prior to publication but not always.

Yes, the steam engine and the modern assembly line were invented "without pee (sic) review" but their continued development came about thru a process very similar to peer review as others looked at the initial object and thought about various ways in which that baby subject was wrong and just how it could be improved.

Peer review as a means to check the work and hypotheses of researchers has been around since the 9th C when Ishaq bin Ali al-Rahwi (854–931) wrote of the need for physicians to keep accurate records of their treatments and the results they saw in order for other doctors to check those methods. Peer review in scientific publishing goes back to at least the 17th C when the editor of the Royal Society's Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society set down a rule that all papers submitted for printing must be checked by other experts in the field of the paper submitted.


Please, please try and do a bit of reading on a subject before making claims, you will look less foolish if you make an effort to educate yourself.

 

[Somerville]

See, you keep talking about REAL SCIENCE but then you just regurgitate exactly what Al Gore would say.

You aren't here for rational discussion of science, because if you were you wouldn't make posts like this one. If you'd ever read any real science, you'd be quite aware that bad computer models and "hockey stick" graphs, even with the reported values added in to hide the real data as suggested by the Climategate memos, just won't cut it any more.

And if you'd ever read any real science, you'd be quite aware that bad computer models and energy industry-funded shills have been proven wrong time and time again in their efforts to "debunk" the multiple "hockey stick" graphs which show an unprecedented rise in global temperature averages

 

[Catawba]

Electric cars are a Good Thing on a golf course, marginal for an urban commute, and useless for individual or family mobility. Good luck with yours.

Tell that to the 6 million drivers of electric cars expected by 2020, who won't be paying big oil companies through the nose each time they "fill up".

"According to research done by 2020, 10 percent of the total car market is estimated that’s next-generation electric cars will occur. That is 6 million units in 2020 will reach the number of electric cars on the roads."

How Many Electric Cars Are There in the World | How Many Are There