doublegunshop.com - home Forums Global warming

Soitenly..

The word is now commonly used to mean 'human caused'. Language changes and expands, your lexicon came up short. Anthropomorphic Climate Change = human caused global warming.

The required data to refute the predictions belongs to the future. As I said, it's not 'currently' falsified because it's a predictive theory. The current observations seem well supported by natural causes without invoking human interference.

Here's a start on Big-Bang

http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp

Yes, the foundation of L-CDM cosmology is one of three possible solutions to a very specific set of equations. It is a mathematical theory only, and it makes two fundamental assumptions both of which have been observationally proven incorrect. The theory assumes the universe to be both homogenous and isotropic, neither of which is the case. We don't even have to get into the debate about red shift being caused by recessional velocity to disprove Big Bang.

We now have some nice maps of glactic structure, which prove galaxies form large walls and voids. There is structure in deep space, out to observable limits which are very close to what Big Bang predicts to be the event horizon.

If you stood on a planet near one edge of a glactic wall, you would see a great difference in what you observed in one direction vrs. the other.

It's that simple. No homogenous and isotropic universe, no big bang equation, thus no big bang.

There are several other problems noted in the article, but I find this one the simplest and most telling arguement.

I want a diesel truck equipped with a special dashboard control that makes the exhaust spew enormous clouds of soot.

Would you care to provide some information on the ratio of scientists in favor of climate change as manipulated by man made activities to those who favor the model that current climate change is just part of a historic cycle and not being manipulated by man made activities?

From the way you present it, it seems that support in the scientific community for the position against is as strong as support for the position that it is being manipulated by man made activities. Its not. Its not even close.

Ah! Herein lies a conundrum! The human condition intervenes here and after jumping millions of times and coming back down we assume it to be a "truth" - the same as molar ratio of hydrogen and oxygen in water to be a "truth"

That works as a casual approximation and to a large extent teleology is right in the real world.

However, in areas where stuff isn't as simple and clear as these examples we maintain skepticism. It is folly to be skeptical of the composition of water but in my own day the molecular structure of complex molecules such as testosterone and DNA were being elucidated and it took a while for the data to become clear.

The substance DNA was discovered (isolated) by Meischer in (I think) the 1860s but its function wasn't known until the mid-20th cent. The nature of the gene was a puzzle and skepticism was maintained but it never became a religion or faith.

We scientists are a crusty, cantankerous lot and one of the earliest of our sodden lot, Robert Boyle, even wrote a book the "Skeptical Chymist"

By the way, if you take Boyle's law you can imagine a situation where it doesn't hold but then thermodynamics would have to reverse! Think Schrodinger's cat.

Here's a real example: Everyone who has ever taken a course in organic synthesis will have encountered the phenomenon of getting a yield that exceeds the theoretical yield - in essence it appears that one has created matter. That has been demonstrated by many ways to be impossible by ordinary chemical means. Yet the observation is made that a student has a 110% yield.

That's one to ponder.

nca, I htink you're right:


but the veracity of an understanding of the natural world is not determined by a plebiscite. The fact that most scientists concur with the general theory of global warming simply indicates that given the date the model is the "best fit"

There willalways be those who, for some philosophical reason, don't like the current best fit and will dredge up some "professor" in an unknown institution to provide a more acceptable opinion. It's sort of like lawyers who shop around for their "expert witness"

Shotgun Jones - Still wondering how many astronomical grant applications you have had rejected.

This is a link to a simple, reasoned non-histrionic global warming discussion that is not based on preconceived notions - worth reading I think. [url=http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/06/the_global_warming_crisis.php][/url]

The idea of putting coal dust on the artic and antartic ice to stop a new ice age back in the seventies has already been brought up.

In the eighties, based on science, Jimmy Carter decided that all new generating plants had to be coal to conserve natural gas for better uses. So here in the Panhandle of Texas right on top of one of the largest natural gas fields in the country we have two coal fired plants. Carter based his decision on the best scientific research. Obama is on the verge of obsoleting the plants by having the EPA up the allowable mercury emissions and the residents will be paying for nice new natural gas plants over the next thrity years.

There is too much uncertainty in the science predicting global warming, too much uncertainty in predicting the politics of global fossil fuel consumption reduction, and too much uncertainty that if we do reduce fossil fuel consumption it will solve anything. We need to be rich to buy Toyota Prius's, develop fuel cells, buy the equipment and infrastructure to change over to nuclear or solar or wind and if we bankrupt ourselves now by shutting down fossil fuels we don't have the means to build the next energy system.

Best,

Mike

Amarillo - you are right about this - one always tries to make the best decisions based on the best data. One is often wrong. And one never has complete data. In medicine, diagnoses are made often with some uncertainty because the picture isn't totally clear.

But some things have emmerged as being clear - mercury ain't good. (I think you may have meant to say that Obama is reducing the allowable mercury emissions)

The less there is in our environment the fewer birth defects there will be.

It's a trade-off.

I suspect that the Carter decision was correct at the time. Bt we learn more and things change. The treatment of burn patients changed dramatically following the Coconut Grove fire but that doesn't mean they were wrong before - they were working within the best paradigm. Our internal combustion engines are better than they were 50 years ago. That doesn't mean they were "wrong" 50 years ago.

The world moves on.

Totally agree with your last paraqraph. That's not the same as denying global warming based on some preconceived notion, nor the same as saying we shouldn't explore the global warming idea and refine the theory based on verifiable science. To ignore those who have the most knowledge and expertise in favor of some anti-scientific agenda is folly.
By the way, my bread is buttered by the oil industry also.

cpa - THANK YOU!!! for that URL - it's a fantastic discussion.