Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"[W:1000, 1660]

[longview]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

What you say is true only for those without science.

With relatively simple chemistry and physics AGW is a calculation. The measurement of it only confirms the calculations. And AGW adds to any natural climate change that might be going on.

No, What I said is true for everyone.

for Science to validate that any warming is a divination from normal,
They have to be able to determine what is normal.

For something to be abnormal, normal has to be known.
Abnormal - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Good luck with proving I am wrong.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

You prove your level of science knowledge with most every post. This one is no exception.

You have no idea what electrical energy is.

Go on then explain what electrical energy is.

I think that I have a fairly decent understanding of it. Let's have a little contest.

 

[Ouch!]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

No, What I said is true for everyone.

For something to be abnormal, normal has to be known.
Abnormal - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Good luck with proving I am wrong.

Again you accurately portray the world without science.

Never before in the history of life has mankind dumped huge quantities of green house gases into the atmosphere. By definition, that's abnormal.

 

[jmotivator]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

Energy imbalance in favor of incoming, for any body in space, ultimately has only one effect. Elevated surface temperatures until energy balance is restored.

You are misusing the principle. For this argument to mean what you think it means we have to assume that all energy on the planet is in the form of heat. Our living environment has trillions of ways to transform solar energy to electricity, to mechanical energy and so on, without adding any heat extra heat to the system. All solar energy could, for example, go to plant growth which would show from space as an energy imbalance but would not be experienced on the planet surface as heat.

 

[Ouch!]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

Go on then explain what electrical energy is.

I think that I have a fairly decent understanding of it. Let's have a little contest.

Everything in the universe is classified as either matter or energy. All energy is electromagnetic. Everything else we consider energy are the effects of energy on matter.

 

[longview]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

Again you accurately portray the world without science.

Never before in the history of life has mankind dumped huge quantities of green house gases into the atmosphere. By definition, that's abnormal.

We are talking about temperature, everyone knows CO2 levels have risen.
The Question is if the observed changes in Temperature are normal?
To answer that question, a person must know what normal is.
To put it Scientifically, "What is the control group?"

 

[Threegoofs]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

We are talking about temperature, everyone knows CO2 levels have risen.
The Question is if the observed changes in Temperature are normal?
To answer that question, a person must know what normal is.
To put it Scientifically, "What is the control group?"

The last couple thousand years is 'normal'.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

Everything in the universe is classified as either matter or energy. All energy is electromagnetic. Everything else we consider energy are the effects of energy on matter.

What's gravity then? Matter or energy?

I'll take that as an instant win for me.

Energy is the capacity to do work. It's a physics concept. A human invention. You will not get it ever.

 

[longview]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

The last couple thousand years is 'normal'.

This is about Ouch saying,

(of course paleoclimatology has no connection to AGW)

I am pointing out understanding what normal is, is central to understanding what is abnormal.

 

[Ouch!]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

What's gravity then? Matter or energy?

I'll take that as an instant win for me.

Energy is the capacity to do work. It's a physics concept. A human invention. You will not get it ever.

Gravity is a property of matter. No matter, no gravity. The capacity to do work is created by previous interaction between energy and matter. The universe is a process to convert matter into energy. When the process is complete there will be only energy and no work will be possible.

 

[Ouch!]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

This is about Ouch saying,

I am pointing out understanding what normal is, is central to understanding what is abnormal.

Here's what's abnormal.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/anthrocarbon-brief.html

Up until now, nature created the climate, life adapted. Today the actions of mankind are changing the climate, but like always, life has to adapt. For now anyway we can choose between mitigating the degree of change we are causing, and the degree of adaptation that will be required.

At some point, soon in my opinion, adaptation will be the only choice, and it will cost whatever it costs.

 

[jmotivator]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

The last couple thousand years is 'normal'.

Hah, gave up arguing with me, have ya?

As a fun exercise, given that the data points of the Marcott are 300 years apart and represent the average of three centuries of climate per point, What would the temperature anomaly be if we condensed the last 300 years of climate to a single data point?

Let's use the Moberg data from the following chart (red line) and do a back-of-the-envelope calculation:



Since the ~1700 anomaly is -.7, and the current data point is +.6, and the intermediary data points run as a roughly straight shot upward incline between the two points, my rough average of the 300 years of cliamte can be found by simply averaging the two end points.

So, in Marcott's graph, if we reduced the last 300 years to a single data point, it would be.... drum roll please... -.05. Or, essentially, average, and nearly a full degree lower than the peak of the Marcott graph, and lower than the MWP.

RUN FOR THE HILLS!

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

Gravity is a property of matter. No matter, no gravity. The capacity to do work is created by previous interaction between energy and matter. The universe is a process to convert matter into energy. When the process is complete there will be only energy and no work will be possible.

Gravity, whilst being a property of matter is not matter just as charge is not matter but a property of charged matter.

Eventually the universe may transform all matter into radiation. This is however in the many many billions of years time scale and possibly not due to the expansion of the universe weakening the background radiation of the universe.

You just keep showing your lack of any scientific knowledge what so ever.

 

[longview]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

Here's what's abnormal.

Climate Change Cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2

Up until now, nature created the climate, life adapted. Today the actions of mankind are changing the climate, but like always, life has to adapt. For now anyway we can choose between mitigating the degree of change we are causing, and the degree of adaptation that will be required.

At some point, soon in my opinion, adaptation will be the only choice, and it will cost whatever it costs.

You are completely missing the Scientific point.
You say

Today the actions of mankind are changing the climate

How do you know, unless you know how the climate was changing before Human influence?
This is why your statement,

(of course paleoclimatology has no connection to AGW)

in post #1685 is so un Scientific.

 

[Ouch!]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

Gravity, whilst being a property of matter is not matter just as charge is not matter but a property of charged matter.

Eventually the universe may transform all matter into radiation. This is however in the many many billions of years time scale and possibly not due to the expansion of the universe weakening the background radiation of the universe.

You just keep showing your lack of any scientific knowledge what so ever.

You seem to know more about gravity than anyone else on earth.

Matter attracts matter. That's one of the things that defines what matter is.

 

[Ouch!]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

You are completely missing the Scientific point.
You say

How do you know, unless you know how the climate was changing before Human influence?
This is why your statement,

in post #1685 is so un Scientific.

Mankind is burning fossil fuels that have been for millions of years sequestered underground. That is returning the carbon to the atmosphere that the plant and animal ingredients in fossil fuels removed from the atmosphere millions of years ago at the start of their formation.

Physics says that that act must warm the planet.

So the choices that mankind is making today have irrefutably the effect of warming the planet and changing the climate in ways that require adaptation by life.

 

[Ouch!]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

Gravity, whilst being a property of matter is not matter just as charge is not matter but a property of charged matter.

Eventually the universe may transform all matter into radiation. This is however in the many many billions of years time scale and possibly not due to the expansion of the universe weakening the background radiation of the universe.

You just keep showing your lack of any scientific knowledge what so ever.

So far nothing that I've posted here has been proven incorrect by anyone. Yet you say " You just keep showing your lack of any scientific knowledge what so ever."

What kind of a sick ego is that?

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

You seem to know more about gravity than anyone else on earth.

Matter attracts matter. That's one of the things that defines what matter is.

Nope, I think any 16 year old who passes their physics will be able to identify the difference between matter and gravity and energy.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

How does faith somehow get confused when all the science shows AGW is a problem?

Pick up a scientific journal someday for proof.

Ok, I know this is pretty basic for our resident scientist, but when the data (collected global temperatures and co2 levels) does not match the hypothesis (co2 hypothesized as being the primary driver of climate), then, as a scientist, the only solutions are to Either modify the hypothesis to incorporate the data, or scrap the hypothesis in light of a new one.

To do otherwise is scientific fraud.

End of story, but you know that already.

The fact that you effectively refuse to accept that fact puts your position as one of faith and not one of science.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

So far nothing that I've posted here has been proven incorrect by anyone. Yet you say " You just keep showing your lack of any scientific knowledge what so ever."

What kind of a sick ego is that?

I don't like it when the word science is used by those who have no idea about any of it. I'm a truth junky. I don't like it when untruths are banded about.

 

[jmotivator]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

You are completely missing the Scientific point.
You say

How do you know, unless you know how the climate was changing before Human influence?
This is why your statement,

in post #1685 is so un Scientific.

I am holding out hope that Ouch! will attempt to argue against the laws of thermodynamics in order to save their busted energy imbalance argument. You know, for science. :lol:

 

[longview]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

Mankind is burning fossil fuels that have been for millions of years sequestered underground. That is returning the carbon to the atmosphere that the plant and animal ingredients in fossil fuels removed from the atmosphere millions of years ago at the start of their formation.

Physics says that that act must warm the planet.

So the choices that mankind is making today have irrefutably the effect of warming the planet and changing the climate in ways that require adaptation by life.

And again, there is no way to say that the observed Temperature changes are abnormal,
without knowing what is normal.
Understanding the effects on a system due to input changes,
being compared to a system where no changes were made,
is one of the fundamental concepts in Science.
Your comment,

(of course paleoclimatology has no connection to AGW)

was wrong in post #1685, is wrong now, and will be wrong years from now.
You cannot determine if there is an Anthropogenic contribution to the observed
Global warming, without knowing what warming was doing without the input of the CO2.

 

[Ouch!]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

Nope, I think any 16 year old who passes their physics will be able to identify the difference between matter and gravity and energy.

What can I say? You're wrong. Matter attracts matter in proportion the sums of the masses and inversely to the square of the distance between them. That's why matter weighs something.

 

[Ouch!]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

I don't like it when the word science is used by those who have no idea about any of it. I'm a truth junky. I don't like it when untruths are banded about.

You are a junk science junky. I invested in what I got. The good stuff.

 

[Ouch!]

Re: Science: Effect of man on climate is "highly uncertain"

Ok, I know this is pretty basic for our resident scientist, but when the data (collected global temperatures and co2 levels) does not match the hypothesis (co2 hypothesized as being the primary driver of climate), then, as a scientist, the only solutions are to Either modify the hypothesis to incorporate the data, or scrap the hypothesis in light of a new one.

To do otherwise is scientific fraud.

End of story, but you know that already.

The fact that you effectively refuse to accept that fact puts your position as one of faith and not one of science.

The theories of radiation and energy conservation and the behavior of green house gases is indisputable. The temperature data is questionable because of the dynamics of energy sinking. We don't really know how long it will take for any increment of excess energy to finally resolve into the warming required for the conservation of energy.

You may not like any of that. You may not know any of that. But science does.