• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Weak Foundation of Calls for Climate Action

This is an intriguing one.

In some ways we are limited by our measurement systems.

In your experience of the "history of science" can you point out an example of how our "measurement systems" failed us so badly as to keep something from being discovered?

I can think of things that, in fact, are nearly undetectable that we figured out were there! Take the history of the neutrino. Basically it fell out of the mathematics and it helped Pauli explain the conservation of mass, energy, momentum and spin during beta decay. From later work by Fermi and Dirac a more full concept arose but no detection. Neutrinos interact weakly with matter. To the point that there's a constant stream of neutrinos sailing through the earth every second of the day as if the earth weren't even there.

Researchers set to finding it, though. And it was discovered in 1942.

So here's a great example of a sort of "revolution" based on something we had almost no real ability to detect! (Obviously we had to find a way to detect it, "beta capture", but you get the point. It is still very hard to detect because of its weak interaction with matter.


In reality scientific discoveries are not as simple as "Dr. X walks into a lab and turns on his detectorizer and waits for science to happen!" No they arise from a deeper theoretical understanding coupled with physical measurement. Sometimes they come in a different order.

Discovery of oxygen is a favorite. Scheele - Priestley - Lavoisier - Davy are the main characters, with many minor players. Moving toward better answers, discarding and reinventing conceptual paradigms along the way.
 
Discovery of oxygen is a favorite. Scheele - Priestley - Lavoisier - Davy are the main characters, with many minor players. Moving toward better answers, discarding and reinventing conceptual paradigms along the way.

And how does that fit in with your quote of limitation by measuring equipment?
 
Scientists: It’s ‘Impossible’ To Measure Critical Cloud Processes…Observations 1/50th As Accurate As They Must Be

By Kenneth Richard on 20. August 2020
Share this...


Clouds dominate as the driver of changes in the Earth’s radiation budget and climate. A comprehensive new analysis suggests we’re so uncertain about cloud processes and how they affect climate we can’t even quantify our uncertainty. . . .


Eschewing laboratory work in cloud microphysics
Instead of embracing the challenge of enhancing our knowledge of critical cloud processes in the laboratory and via experiments, climate scientists are increasingly choosing to neglect cloud impacts and formulate climate models without them.
A new study (Morrison et al., 2020) suggests only 8% of 354 cloud studies in 2018 involved laboratory or experimental work in cloud microphysics.

Without real-world observations and controlled experiments, scientifically falsififying hypotheses becomes nearly impossible. Without falsification, there can be no verification.
Falsification-attempts-via-experimentation-is-only-way-to-verify-a-theory-Morrison-2020.jpg

Image Source: Morrison et al., 2020
 
To View TRCS Report “Reality-Based Warming Potential of Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas Emissions” (click here) by Marty Cornell, TRCS member since 2012 (12 page Report)
 
[h=2]Yawn…Central Europe Sees Near Normal Summer As Earlier Predictions Of Record Heat, Drought Fail[/h]By P Gosselin on 5. September 2020
Share this...


Earlier this year in spring, the WMO and others warned of another record hot summer and drought. The German media went bonkers in response warning that 2020 could even be hotter and drier than the 2018 and 2019 summers.
But now that the meteorological summer (June 1 – August 31) has ended, the data show that these earlier predictions were WRONG.
Germany’s DWD national weather service, having tabulated data from some 2000 stations nationwide, has issued its preliminary report for the summer of 2020. The results: a near normal summer. . . .
 
[h=2]Yawn…Central Europe Sees Near Normal Summer As Earlier Predictions Of Record Heat, Drought Fail[/h]By P Gosselin on 5. September 2020
Share this...


Earlier this year in spring, the WMO and others warned of another record hot summer and drought. The German media went bonkers in response warning that 2020 could even be hotter and drier than the 2018 and 2019 summers.
But now that the meteorological summer (June 1 – August 31) has ended, the data show that these earlier predictions were WRONG.
Germany’s DWD national weather service, having tabulated data from some 2000 stations nationwide, has issued its preliminary report for the summer of 2020. The results: a near normal summer. . . .

This isn't how any of this science actually works, you know.

I mean, one year's worth of data has exactly zero value in the discussion. It pains me to no end when I hear folks who do accept that AGW is real try to make some big point about "this year will be the warmest on record!" because it really doesn't mean anything. Statistics works on ensemble data, time-series data is even more difficult to work with.

By the same token it is equally ignorant for folks who doubt the importance of AGW (or deny it) to point to a single year and say "Look! AGW isn't real!"

Just so much scientific illiteracy across the board.
 
This isn't how any of this science actually works, you know.

I mean, one year's worth of data has exactly zero value in the discussion. It pains me to no end when I hear folks who do accept that AGW is real try to make some big point about "this year will be the warmest on record!" because it really doesn't mean anything. Statistics works on ensemble data, time-series data is even more difficult to work with.

By the same token it is equally ignorant for folks who doubt the importance of AGW (or deny it) to point to a single year and say "Look! AGW isn't real!"

Just so much scientific illiteracy across the board.

I know just how meaningless it is. I post it specifically to counter the alarmist BS you mentioned.
 
I know just how meaningless it is. I post it specifically to counter the alarmist BS you mentioned.

Well, that's a big fail for you. Because I explictly avoid drawing conclusions about climate based on single datapoints in the trend. I have, indeed, been pretty religious about that for many, many, many years in various discussions.

Because I have experience with statistics.
 
Well, that's a big fail for you. Because I explictly avoid drawing conclusions about climate based on single datapoints in the trend. I have, indeed, been pretty religious about that for many, many, many years in various discussions.

Because I have experience with statistics.

You're not my target.
 
You mentioned the alarmist BS to disavow it. I applaud that.

Thanks.

"counter" =/= "applaud".

When one counters an argument it is against said argument. Hence the word "counter".
 
[FONT=&][/FONT]
Ocean carbon uptake widely underestimated

[FONT=&]Previous estimates of the movement of carbon (known as “flux”) between the atmosphere and oceans have not accounted for temperature differences at the water’s surface and a few metres below.
Continue reading →
[/FONT]

That's actually kinda interesting!

The uptake of carbon by the ocean is one of those areas that always causes me some small amount of confusion. I was wondering if you could explain the Revelle Factor to me better. I didn't see it mentioned in this article you just posted but it is part and parcel of it. But it's always seemed somewhat opaque to me.

Can you help me with this topic?
 
Thanks.

"counter" =/= "applaud".

When one counters an argument it is against said argument. Hence the word "counter".

I was not countering your argument; I was applauding it. Learn to take "yes" for an answer.
 
That's actually kinda interesting!

The uptake of carbon by the ocean is one of those areas that always causes me some small amount of confusion. I was wondering if you could explain the Revelle Factor to me better. I didn't see it mentioned in this article you just posted but it is part and parcel of it. But it's always seemed somewhat opaque to me.

Can you help me with this topic?

Here's the paper.

[h=3]Revised estimates of ocean-atmosphere CO 2 flux ... - Nature[/h]www.nature.com › nature communications › articles




1 day ago - Time-resolved estimates of global ocean-atmosphere CO2 flux provide ... Nature Communications volume 11, Article number: 4422 (2020) Cite this article ... In contrast to earlier surface flux estimates, our revision is consistent ...
 
Thanks! I appreciate that. I just got tripped up on the wording.

Yes, you mentioned it. You did not post it or advocate it. My plainly stated intent was to counter the BS you mentioned, not any BS you originated or were responsible for. We were and are in agreement.
 
Here's the paper.

[h=3]Revised estimates of ocean-atmosphere CO 2 flux ... - Nature[/h]www.nature.com › nature communications › articles




1 day ago - Time-resolved estimates of global ocean-atmosphere CO2 flux provide ... Nature Communications volume 11, Article number: 4422 (2020) Cite this article ... In contrast to earlier surface flux estimates, our revision is consistent ...

Yeah, I skimmed through it (I always attempt to read the ACTUAL papers).

It doesn't speak directly to the Revelle Factor per se (and I know you understand the critical nature of the RF in the discussion). It does briefly discuss salinity so I'm guessing the RF is implicitly within the topic. Since it was largely silent on this I was hoping you could help me understand the article better.

In your understanding how does this work in relation to the broader topic of ocean buffering of CO2 absorption factoring in not just the temperature at the MBL but also more detailed discussion of DIC and salinity and pH.

Again, this is really pretty interesting. I'm hoping you can actually help me better understand this.
 
Yeah, I skimmed through it (I always attempt to read the ACTUAL papers).

It doesn't speak directly to the Revelle Factor per se (and I know you understand the critical nature of the RF in the discussion). It does briefly discuss salinity so I'm guessing the RF is implicitly within the topic. Since it was largely silent on this I was hoping you could help me understand the article better.

In your understanding how does this work in relation to the broader topic of ocean buffering of CO2 absorption factoring in not just the temperature at the MBL but also more detailed discussion of DIC and salinity and pH.

Again, this is really pretty interesting. I'm hoping you can actually help me better understand this.

Good luck.
 
Good luck.

LOL. That's disarmingly honest! Thanks!

I'll keep asking these questions, though. Some day there will be a technical aspect to your posts that you do understand.

And I'm being honest here: I struggle with the complexities of the RF and this article seemed like it would be very integral to the discussion...so I actually AM looking for insight. You posted it because presumably you believe it. I thought maybe you would be able to help.
 
LOL. That's disarmingly honest! Thanks!

I'll keep asking these questions, though. Some day there will be a technical aspect to your posts that you do understand.

And I'm being honest here: I struggle with the complexities of the RF and this article seemed like it would be very integral to the discussion...so I actually AM looking for insight. You posted it because presumably you believe it. I thought maybe you would be able to help.

I think you’re the first poster ever who takes Jack seriously.

It’s hilarious.
 
Yeah, I skimmed through it (I always attempt to read the ACTUAL papers).

It doesn't speak directly to the Revelle Factor per se (and I know you understand the critical nature of the RF in the discussion). It does briefly discuss salinity so I'm guessing the RF is implicitly within the topic. Since it was largely silent on this I was hoping you could help me understand the article better.

In your understanding how does this work in relation to the broader topic of ocean buffering of CO2 absorption factoring in not just the temperature at the MBL but also more detailed discussion of DIC and salinity and pH.

Again, this is really pretty interesting. I'm hoping you can actually help me better understand this.

Regardless, it's close to what other papers have said for the absorption of the extra CO2 we put in the atmosphere.
 
Back
Top Bottom