AGW denial is anti-science
Discussion
Kawasicki said:
You are not countering his argument. Yo have created a straw man argument about energy equilibrium...whereas JuniorD seems to be stating that the changes due to mankind are insignificant compared to natural variability.
He didn’t provide an argument to refute unless you think “I don’t believe it” counts as an argument. There are thousand of papers by climate scientists that support the position that humans are influencing the climate. Esceptico said:
The next recycled creationist argument: the appeal to incredulity. In their case: how could something as complex as an eye evolve? For deniers: how could human activity have such an impact?
A simple analogy to illustrate reality. Fill a bath with water. Pull the plug but keep the tap running. Adjust the tap until is matches the loss of water from the plug. Although lots of water is being added to the bath the level of the bath will not go up or down, because the system is in a dynamic equilibrium. Now open the tap very slightly. Water entering will now slightly exceed water exiting the system and the water level will slowly rise, even though the rate of flow has hardly changed (and it would continue to rise until the rate of flow out of the bath increased enough to reach a new equilibrium, at which point the bath level would stop rising but it would be at a higher level than before).
Changes made by human activity are not large compared to the total flow of energy to the earth from the sun nor the total flow of energy from the earth back into space but like the bath analogy, by increasing slightly the amount of energy retained the overall energy (and therefore temperature) will increase until a new equilibrium is attained.
Equilibrium?A simple analogy to illustrate reality. Fill a bath with water. Pull the plug but keep the tap running. Adjust the tap until is matches the loss of water from the plug. Although lots of water is being added to the bath the level of the bath will not go up or down, because the system is in a dynamic equilibrium. Now open the tap very slightly. Water entering will now slightly exceed water exiting the system and the water level will slowly rise, even though the rate of flow has hardly changed (and it would continue to rise until the rate of flow out of the bath increased enough to reach a new equilibrium, at which point the bath level would stop rising but it would be at a higher level than before).
Changes made by human activity are not large compared to the total flow of energy to the earth from the sun nor the total flow of energy from the earth back into space but like the bath analogy, by increasing slightly the amount of energy retained the overall energy (and therefore temperature) will increase until a new equilibrium is attained.
Haha, good one.
stew-STR160 said:
Esceptico said:
The next recycled creationist argument: the appeal to incredulity. In their case: how could something as complex as an eye evolve? For deniers: how could human activity have such an impact?
A simple analogy to illustrate reality. Fill a bath with water. Pull the plug but keep the tap running. Adjust the tap until is matches the loss of water from the plug. Although lots of water is being added to the bath the level of the bath will not go up or down, because the system is in a dynamic equilibrium. Now open the tap very slightly. Water entering will now slightly exceed water exiting the system and the water level will slowly rise, even though the rate of flow has hardly changed (and it would continue to rise until the rate of flow out of the bath increased enough to reach a new equilibrium, at which point the bath level would stop rising but it would be at a higher level than before).
Changes made by human activity are not large compared to the total flow of energy to the earth from the sun nor the total flow of energy from the earth back into space but like the bath analogy, by increasing slightly the amount of energy retained the overall energy (and therefore temperature) will increase until a new equilibrium is attained.
Equilibrium?A simple analogy to illustrate reality. Fill a bath with water. Pull the plug but keep the tap running. Adjust the tap until is matches the loss of water from the plug. Although lots of water is being added to the bath the level of the bath will not go up or down, because the system is in a dynamic equilibrium. Now open the tap very slightly. Water entering will now slightly exceed water exiting the system and the water level will slowly rise, even though the rate of flow has hardly changed (and it would continue to rise until the rate of flow out of the bath increased enough to reach a new equilibrium, at which point the bath level would stop rising but it would be at a higher level than before).
Changes made by human activity are not large compared to the total flow of energy to the earth from the sun nor the total flow of energy from the earth back into space but like the bath analogy, by increasing slightly the amount of energy retained the overall energy (and therefore temperature) will increase until a new equilibrium is attained.
Haha, good one.
Esceptico said:
Kawasicki said:
You are not countering his argument. Yo have created a straw man argument about energy equilibrium...whereas JuniorD seems to be stating that the changes due to mankind are insignificant compared to natural variability.
He didn’t provide an argument to refute unless you think “I don’t believe it” counts as an argument. There are thousand of papers by climate scientists that support the position that humans are influencing the climate. Sounds reasonable to me.
stew-STR160 said:
Simpo Two said:
I've no doubt that 9 billion humans are influencing the climate. I'd be surprised if they weren't.
Case closed.
Was there anything else you wanted to discuss?
Where did the extra 1.3 billion come from?Case closed.
Was there anything else you wanted to discuss?
Kawasicki said:
Esceptico said:
Kawasicki said:
You are not countering his argument. Yo have created a straw man argument about energy equilibrium...whereas JuniorD seems to be stating that the changes due to mankind are insignificant compared to natural variability.
He didn’t provide an argument to refute unless you think “I don’t believe it” counts as an argument. There are thousand of papers by climate scientists that support the position that humans are influencing the climate. Sounds reasonable to me.
I’m sure all the counterintuitive science like relativity or quantum physics must be wrong too because that would definitely fail your “reasonableness” test.
Clue: it only seems reasonable to you because it agrees with what you already believe.
Esceptico said:
Kawasicki said:
Esceptico said:
Kawasicki said:
You are not countering his argument. Yo have created a straw man argument about energy equilibrium...whereas JuniorD seems to be stating that the changes due to mankind are insignificant compared to natural variability.
He didn’t provide an argument to refute unless you think “I don’t believe it” counts as an argument. There are thousand of papers by climate scientists that support the position that humans are influencing the climate. Sounds reasonable to me.
I’m sure all the counterintuitive science like relativity or quantum physics must be wrong too because that would definitely fail your “reasonableness” test.
Clue: it only seems reasonable to you because it agrees with what you already believe.
Here is a definition of science...
...the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
Relativity and quantum physics theories fit the definition well.
On the other hand catastrophic man made climate change hasn’t happened, except in climate models, and therefore hasn’t been observed, even though the experiment has been underway for centuries already.
So really CAGW belief is anti science.
Kawasicki said:
So you believe natural variability doesn’t dwarf man made influences?
Here is a definition of science...
...the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
Relativity and quantum physics theories fit the definition well.
On the other hand catastrophic man made climate change hasn’t happened, except in climate models, and therefore hasn’t been observed, even though the experiment has been underway for centuries already.
So really CAGW belief is anti science.
Staggeringly silly comment.Here is a definition of science...
...the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
Relativity and quantum physics theories fit the definition well.
On the other hand catastrophic man made climate change hasn’t happened, except in climate models, and therefore hasn’t been observed, even though the experiment has been underway for centuries already.
So really CAGW belief is anti science.
Science is about developing theories that allow us to predict what will happen. If you are about to jump off a high building I can tell you that the force of gravity will cause you to fall and accelerate at roughly ten metres per second per second (less because of air resistance). And that you would suffer a massive decelerating force when you hit the ground. According to you it wouldn’t be science unless you actually jumped off and proved the prediction.
The science behind greenhouse gases is very simple and proved in the laboratory ie that greenhouse gases absorb radiation and then remit it. Increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases will result in an increase in temperature unless there is negative feedback. Climate modelling is all about trying to figure out the positive and negative feedback. That is serious science. Pontificating on how human activities don’t impact the climate is just opinion.
Esceptico said:
I’m sure climate scientists are devastated that rather than dedicating their lives to understanding how the climate works they could have just come to you for your opinion, because what seems reasonable to you must be right.
I’m sure all the counterintuitive science like relativity or quantum physics must be wrong too because that would definitely fail your “reasonableness” test.
Clue: it only seems reasonable to you because it agrees with what you already believe.
Still being rigorously tested and refined by a vast number of real experiments. In no way is any of it set in stone consensus. Ask any real physicist about 'consensus' in the same manner as climate alarmism purports and they'd be disgusted at the very notion of it.I’m sure all the counterintuitive science like relativity or quantum physics must be wrong too because that would definitely fail your “reasonableness” test.
Clue: it only seems reasonable to you because it agrees with what you already believe.
Esceptico said:
Staggeringly silly comment.
Science is about developing theories that allow us to predict what will happen. If you are about to jump off a high building I can tell you that the force of gravity will cause you to fall and accelerate at roughly ten metres per second per second (less because of air resistance). And that you would suffer a massive decelerating force when you hit the ground. According to you it wouldn’t be science unless you actually jumped off and proved the prediction.
The science behind greenhouse gases is very simple and proved in the laboratory ie that greenhouse gases absorb radiation and then remit it. Increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases will result in an increase in temperature unless there is negative feedback. Climate modelling is all about trying to figure out the positive and negative feedback. That is serious science. Pontificating on how human activities don’t impact the climate is just opinion.
The science behind greenhouse gases show a 1 degree change per doubling of concentration. Well below any "catastrophic" changes that require an abadonment of fossil fuels. For the catastrophic global warming to occur this doubling requires an amplification via an increase of H2O in the atmosphere. Thus far there has been no measurable increase and no sign of amplification (no undebatable "hotspots") .Science is about developing theories that allow us to predict what will happen. If you are about to jump off a high building I can tell you that the force of gravity will cause you to fall and accelerate at roughly ten metres per second per second (less because of air resistance). And that you would suffer a massive decelerating force when you hit the ground. According to you it wouldn’t be science unless you actually jumped off and proved the prediction.
The science behind greenhouse gases is very simple and proved in the laboratory ie that greenhouse gases absorb radiation and then remit it. Increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases will result in an increase in temperature unless there is negative feedback. Climate modelling is all about trying to figure out the positive and negative feedback. That is serious science. Pontificating on how human activities don’t impact the climate is just opinion.
H2O in other studies appears to act as a "governor" to the feedbacks and there are many situations where H2O acts as this (albedo variation due to cloud cover - storm formations to force energy away from the surface etc.) . CO2 is a weak GHG compared with H2O as it only covers a narrow IR band that H2O doesn't already absorb (especially at temperatures found at atmospheric levels where H2O is scarce). As such the slight increase in CO2 above CO2 starvation levels can only be responsible for a small change in temperature and mankinds contibution to this is minor. Whilst some would argue that any impact mankind is having is negative this is never balanced against the positives (both to mankind and to plant life) .
We use fossil fuels mainly because the earth is too cold over most of its surface and to build structures to keep out the weather (we don't experience climate change we only experience weather) . Abandoning fossil fuels on the off chance the weather may in some cases get a little worse is akin to commiting suicide on the off chance you might die later.
I find it super fascinating in an (almost) non judgemental way, how political and scientific opinions cluster together within groups of enthusiasts.
Can be seen in microcosm in EV section for instance, but is more obvious fin car vs cycling forums for eg.
Did anyone see the great hack? Lots of fancy shots of server rooms etc. But more likely, the leave campaign used more oldschool methods such as car registrations to target voters.
Fascinating stuff.
Personally I'm guilty of defending whatever evidence happens to coincide with my lifestyle. I can't be arsed to recycle so magically have strong opinions on shipping plastics to malaysia etc! Strange that.
Can be seen in microcosm in EV section for instance, but is more obvious fin car vs cycling forums for eg.
Did anyone see the great hack? Lots of fancy shots of server rooms etc. But more likely, the leave campaign used more oldschool methods such as car registrations to target voters.
Fascinating stuff.
Personally I'm guilty of defending whatever evidence happens to coincide with my lifestyle. I can't be arsed to recycle so magically have strong opinions on shipping plastics to malaysia etc! Strange that.
Sambucket said:
I find it super fascinating in an (almost) non judgemental way, how political and scientific opinions cluster together within groups of enthusiasts.
Can be seen in microcosm in EV section for instance, but is more obvious for instance in cycling forums.
Did anyone see the great hack? Lots of fancy shots of server rooms etc. But more likely, the leave campaign used more oldschool methods such as car registrations to target voters.
Fascinating stuff.
Personally I'm guilty of defending whatever evidence happens to coincide with my lifestyle. I can't be arsed to recycle so magically have strong opinions on shipping plastics to malaysia etc! Strange that.
What's remarkable is how you can see correlation between different views. Anti-climate change, pro-Brexit, denying the gender pay gap, anti-veganism etc - all the same characters.Can be seen in microcosm in EV section for instance, but is more obvious for instance in cycling forums.
Did anyone see the great hack? Lots of fancy shots of server rooms etc. But more likely, the leave campaign used more oldschool methods such as car registrations to target voters.
Fascinating stuff.
Personally I'm guilty of defending whatever evidence happens to coincide with my lifestyle. I can't be arsed to recycle so magically have strong opinions on shipping plastics to malaysia etc! Strange that.
Esceptico said:
Kawasicki said:
So you believe natural variability doesn’t dwarf man made influences?
Here is a definition of science...
...the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
Relativity and quantum physics theories fit the definition well.
On the other hand catastrophic man made climate change hasn’t happened, except in climate models, and therefore hasn’t been observed, even though the experiment has been underway for centuries already.
So really CAGW belief is anti science.
Staggeringly silly comment.Here is a definition of science...
...the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
Relativity and quantum physics theories fit the definition well.
On the other hand catastrophic man made climate change hasn’t happened, except in climate models, and therefore hasn’t been observed, even though the experiment has been underway for centuries already.
So really CAGW belief is anti science.
Science is about developing theories that allow us to predict what will happen. If you are about to jump off a high building I can tell you that the force of gravity will cause you to fall and accelerate at roughly ten metres per second per second (less because of air resistance). And that you would suffer a massive decelerating force when you hit the ground. According to you it wouldn’t be science unless you actually jumped off and proved the prediction.
The science behind greenhouse gases is very simple and proved in the laboratory ie that greenhouse gases absorb radiation and then remit it. Increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases will result in an increase in temperature unless there is negative feedback. Climate modelling is all about trying to figure out the positive and negative feedback. That is serious science. Pontificating on how human activities don’t impact the climate is just opinion.
Are those activities having catastrophic outcomes? No, the evidence from the past two centuries would suggest not.
Bussolini said:
What's remarkable is how you can see correlation between different views. Anti-climate change, pro-Brexit, denying the gender pay gap, anti-veganism etc - all the same characters.
Climate change is real. We question the alarmist propaganda relating to it though and all the scare stories, wrong predictions, bad science practices, hiding data etc etc.Brexit...bring it on. I dislike the EU very much. Love Europe though.
There should only be a pay gap based on job type and skill set. Not gender(of which there are only 2)
Veganism/veggies, peoples choice. Doesn't affect me until a vegan won't shut up about how amazing they are because they're a vegan and how we should all be...
So...
stew-STR160 said:
Climate change is real. We question the alarmist propaganda relating to it though and all the scare stories, wrong predictions, bad science practices, hiding data etc etc.
Brexit...bring it on. I dislike the EU very much. Love Europe though.
There should only be a pay gap based on job type and skill set. Not gender(of which there are only 2)
Veganism/veggies, peoples choice. Doesn't affect me until a vegan won't shut up about how amazing they are because they're a vegan and how we should all be...
So...
Precisely. Without delving into the rights and wrongs of your views, why do we not have people that are pro-EU but anti-climate change, or vice versa? Why does there seem to be such a stark division between 'liberal' and 'conservative'? Brexit...bring it on. I dislike the EU very much. Love Europe though.
There should only be a pay gap based on job type and skill set. Not gender(of which there are only 2)
Veganism/veggies, peoples choice. Doesn't affect me until a vegan won't shut up about how amazing they are because they're a vegan and how we should all be...
So...
Bussolini said:
What's remarkable is how you can see correlation between different views. Anti-climate change, pro-Brexit, denying the gender pay gap, anti-veganism etc - all the same characters.
I have noticed that too, almost like a whole section of society is predisposed towards (and sensitive to) hyperbole, easily whipped up into doomsday hysteria creating a vocal minority who somehow believe that the louder they shout, the truer their cause.Kawasicki said:
But no one is pontificating on how human activities don’t impact the climate. Do you understand that?
Are those activities having catastrophic outcomes? No, the evidence from the past two centuries would suggest not.
An old friend of mine, works in international development, and her fulltime, 5 days a week job, is dealing with impact of climate change on (mostly poor farming and coastal) communities. Are those activities having catastrophic outcomes? No, the evidence from the past two centuries would suggest not.
You can argue the evidence is contentious, sure. But you can't argue there is no evidence at all.
She doesn't own a car!
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff