Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 Next
Comments 65801 to 65850:
-
apiratelooksat50 at 16:40 PM on 23 January 2012The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
KR at 13 I'm referring to the NCSE website statement. Give me a list of modern species that are extinct due to climate change. I'm not saying climate change is not a problem. Rapid environmental changes are stressors on organisms. That's a basic fact that I teach. -
apiratelooksat50 at 16:34 PM on 23 January 2012The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
Rob at 11 and 12 The chytrid fungus is responsible for the demise of many amphibians worldwide including the Golden Frog. Don't quote me on this, but I don't believe any species have gone extinct from it. Oddly enough the fungus was spread by researchers investigating population declines. What is the "warming spreading bacteria" you're referring to? What species of frogs are gone from that bacteria, and what are the lizard species disappearing due to global warming? Nothing like a bit of honesty, eh? -
The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
apiratelooksat50- For a more specific example, you might Google "amphibian extinction climate change". But more seriously, look at the historic record - how do extinction numbers vary with changes in the environment? Permian–Triassic extinction event? PETM? Younger Dryas impact? And if you don't recognize that fast changes in the environment relate rather directly to extinction rates, you're not doing your homework. And - you are not doing a great job of teaching your students how to look at the data. -
apiratelooksat50 at 16:20 PM on 23 January 2012The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
KR at 8 I previously did what you suggested and could not find a list of species. Your search turned up either past extinctions or projections/risks. Chris G at 9 I mean currently just like in Climate Change 101. Please follow the link to the NCSE site and read the first bullet under Climate Change 101. -
John Hartz at 16:15 PM on 23 January 2012National (US) Strategy Proposed to Respond to Climate Change’s Impacts on Fish, Wildlife, Plants
@Stevo #1: National environmental organizations would be a good source of information about how Congressional actions will impact federal fish and wildlife agencies. For starters, check out the website of the National Wildlife Federation. -
Rob Painting at 15:58 PM on 23 January 2012The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
Pirate - .....and I tell my students that climate change has led to the "extinction of plant and animal species", and they ask me to list the species - what do I say? What about? "I haven't actually bothered to research the topic." Nothing like a bit of honesty. -
Rob Painting at 15:54 PM on 23 January 2012The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
Wasn't there a golden frog is Central America that went extinct because it became too warm? I know a truckload of lizards are disappearing from the tropics quicksmart as a result global warming, and some frog species are disappearing as a result of warming spreading bacteria into populations with no natural resistance. Actually the extinction of species in the tropics is alarming - there's no other apt description for it. The trouble is humans extinguish plants and animals in so many different ways, not only by making it too warm. I've a stackload of papers of extinctions and global warming, but have yet to get to writing about them. One day...... -
Albatross at 15:51 PM on 23 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
DSL @50, I second your suggestion of Spencer Weart's book. But this is all off topic. If it was patonomics's goal to derail the thread, s/he certainly is trying very hard. They are also, despite trying to create that impression, not amendable to reason or compelling evidence. The independent research papers cited provide a very consistent and coherent picture, and that is clearly causing some angst amongst the "skeptics". If people want to debate the philosophy behind AGW, or other aspects then please take them to the relevant threads. This thread is to discuss the "review the results of these various studies, and a few others which we have not previously examined, to see what the scientific literature and data have to say about exactly what is causing global warming.". So can we stick to that please. Surely is not to much to ask? -
Chris G at 15:49 PM on 23 January 2012The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
Pirate, I'm thinking you should also clarify whether you mean climate change within the last 100 years, or climate change in paleohistory. -
The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
apiratelooksat50 - I would suggest simply looking at something like this, and doing the requisite reading. -
apiratelooksat50 at 15:36 PM on 23 January 2012The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
If I'm using Climate Change 101 as a resource for teaching, and I tell my students that climate change has led to the "extinction of plant and animal species", and they ask me to list the species - what do I say? -
muoncounter at 15:33 PM on 23 January 2012The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
Aargh! Their link to SkS used to be above their RealClimate link. -
National (US) Strategy Proposed to Respond to Climate Change’s Impacts on Fish, Wildlife, Plants
Stevo - The current political situation in the US is, of course, in flux (as always). The Republicans are aiming to remove/emasculate the EPA and anything else that interferes with unrestrained business, the Democrats are less enamored with those ideas - deadlock ensues. Based upon personal observations (and only that, sad to say, although where I live [DC] national politics is also local politics), I don't expect major changes. The Democrats won't make major concessions, the Republicans will continue to wave the issue but not push it as long as they get other items instead, politics will continue. [My apologies for the political viewpoints here - but that's what was queried... if this entire conversation gets moderated, I won't be terribly surprised.] -
Stevo at 15:21 PM on 23 January 2012National (US) Strategy Proposed to Respond to Climate Change’s Impacts on Fish, Wildlife, Plants
Considering how the idea of national parks was pioneered by the USA I find it disturbing that there are currently threats to abolish the EPA. Could any of our American readers advise just how much danger various fish and wildlife agencies are in at this point in time? -
skywatcher at 15:19 PM on 23 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
#61: You request validation, but what do you wish validation of? 1: That the Earth's temperature is rising, according to all major temperature records? 2: That the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere continues to rise rapidly, and that the CO2 increase is isotopically identifiable as being fossil fuel-derived? 3: The fundamental theoretical and experimental basis for CO2, water vapour and some other gases being radiatively active (see Spencer Weart for a history going back 150 years)? 4: The direct observations of the CO2 greenhouse effect (e.g. Harries et al 2001, Philipona)? 5: The observations that the temperature rise is consistent with the enhanced greenhouse effect (nights warming faster than days, stratosphere cooling etc). It is inconsistent with a warming from other sources. Do you not trust the above observations or the century-old theoretical basis? If not, why not? What more validation do you need? -
TOP at 15:18 PM on 23 January 2012How do Climate Models Work?
For the technically minded Global climate model on wikipedia.org.
sidd
I found some mention of adaptive meshing in some of the models named in the graphic. You probably need to read through the model documentation. -
A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
patonomics - I would point you towards the simplified RealCliate overview, as well as The Discovery of Global Warming. Multiple observations, multiple reinforcing fingerprints of anthropogenic warming (as opposed to solar, cosmic ray, leprechauns, etc.), basics in pure science such as spectroscopy, >120 years of simple physics pointing to the increased greenhouse effect, on and on and ... If you want a simple equation (and apparently you are looking for a shrink-wrapped simplification), I would suggest this. As inputs, look at the changes in radiation to space at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) over the satellite era, demonstrating reductions from the pure black-body spectra to a less efficient (in terms of energy radiated based on temperature) emissivity due to increased greenhouse gases. Less energy radiated at a particular temperature, thus higher temperatures to radiate away what the sun inputs to the climate system - it doesn't get any simpler than that. -
Tom Curtis at 15:15 PM on 23 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
I see that patanomics (@63) has got the very "clear communication" from the moderator. I expect him therefore to reopen this discussion in a thread in which it is on topic, as that was the very clear suggestion by the moderator. Something about the wording of patanomics response, however, suggests to me that he is trying to pretend that a requirement that he comply withe the comments policy is actually censorship, when it is no such thing. I hope I am wrong. -
muoncounter at 15:11 PM on 23 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
patonomics: You've been pointed to any number of 'validation documents' and yet you ignore those pointers. #61: "I am just asking if it is 1) validated or 2) derived from assumption, or from 3) theory (based on assumption)? " That is entirely circular. The theory is valid (it is called 'physics'), the data validate the theory. The only one making assumptions is you, as you have built a case on a single sentence from a thousand-plus page summary document. And in #54: "I am not going to read and read in litterateurs and compete with those who are into full time Climate Scientist" If you don't want to read, you don't want to learn - or even have your preconceived notions (a 'deterministic equation') challenged. I note that you have not responded to several comments showing the irrelevancy of that search. We must conclude that your 'questions' here are merely rhetorical; no one has time to play that game. -
2012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
actually thoughtful - Yes, as Tom Curtis points out SkS is run by volunteers. Unlike Michaels and Knappenberger, who get direct funding from their fossil fuel customers :) -
actually thoughtful at 15:02 PM on 23 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
Patonomics - You are asking for an equation and we are responding by saying - you don't need an equation when the evidence is directly in front of you. However, here is a simple equation. The hypothesis is that it is warmer now than in 1975. this can be expressed in the logical equation: If Tn>Tt, global warming is occurring (you recognize, of course that this is simplified as necessary to present it on a blog site) Where Tn is Temperature now, and Tt is Temperature then (as I said- keep it simple). Thus you have your validation equation, supported, not by models, but observable reality. And of course, this was predicted by Arrhenius in 1896, so the science has been tested almost as long as old Galileo (by which I mean you can measure in the 100 year increments). If this does not meet your equation requirements, perhaps you can be both more specific and more succinct? -
patonomics at 14:57 PM on 23 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
Moderator Response#56: I got your msg ["subsequent pursuit of this topic will receive further, more severe moderation"]. I will not bother you any more. Thank you for your clear communication.Response:[DB] Unfortunately, there are no posts at Skeptical Science directly focus on the philosophy of science. You are welcome to peruse any/all of the 4,700+ comment threads here at SkS dealing with all aspects of climate science and may place on-topic comments on any of them.
Simply use the Search function in the Upper Left of every page to locate those more appropriate threads.
-
actually thoughtful at 14:48 PM on 23 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
patonomics - it is notable that you have no 20th century examples of Galileo, nor can you produce any counters to the overwhelming evidence in support of AGW. I hope you will take the time to think about the implications of those two items. It appears your validation is already at hand. Your task is simply to understand what the evidence tells us - that world is warming, and man is to blame. -
patonomics at 14:46 PM on 23 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
KR#60: What I tried to communicate is science needs validation and not assumption. I do NOT and can NOT equate myself with "Galileo". "mass of evidence supports anthropogenic global warming" - I am just asking if it is 1) validated or 2) derived from assumption, or from 3) theory (based on assumption)? If AGW is validated truth, why not its quantitative (I expect the relationship must be deterministic in quantitative level) form is presented in a equation of temp as dependent variable of human created co2. Once I get validation document it will SILENCE my Q. Is not that easy to and many other who claim "The mass of evidence supports anthropogenic global warming" ? -
Tom Curtis at 14:37 PM on 23 January 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #1
actually thoughtful @63, you must remember that SkS started simply as a personal resource of a science (student? graduate?) involved in the AGW debate. John Cook, when he started SkS, was not the media savvy communication savy person he is today, but only wanted a resource for himself, which he decided to post publicly as an after thought. Consequently, in the early days he made some mistakes (such as that involving the quote on the Antarctic Ice thread). Another mistake has been not logging the dates of updates, which led accidentally to an even more embarrassing mistake in which an article was updated, and then later a moderator made an inline comment on a post made before the update, that assumed the article at the time of posting was the current article. We have certainly learnt from those mistakes. We have no intent to deceive in any way, so the mistakes are genuine; and we genuinely wish to not repeat them. Consequently, you will now note an indication of the last update time on each article where relevant. There has been ongoing discussion of other reforms, including a permanent publicly accessible change log, and a borehole. There are, however, technical issues that need resolving. Do, for example prior comments get moved with the old article to the change log? Further, these changes require rewriting code (apparently), and above all time. SkS is run by a very small group of volunteers working part time. Most of the volunteers have very time consuming day jobs, and family (and other commitments). Further, their available time is divided between administrative duties on SkS, producing new articles, researching to keep up with the science (where that is not part of their day job), and answering questions, and rebutting denier comments in the comments section. Given the available time, the output of some of the volunteers is extraordinary. Here I have particularly in mind Dan Nuccitelli whose production rate of new articles is phenomenal, Daniel Bailey whose work as a moderator is very time consuming, and of a very high standard, and John Hartz, who is phenomenal as a news hound for new research, or AGW related articles in the mass media or blogosphere (in addition to producing these excellent weekly digests). I know others do great work behind the scenes on technical aspects, but as I know nothing about the technicalities I cannot give them proper credit. So, while some of your suggestions re transparency are very good, and have been suggested in internal discussion, they have not been implemented, or have not been implemented yet due to a lack of resources. However, until George Soros decides to open up his purse strings, or we get more volunteers, we will do the best we can; and certainly appreciate your continued suggestions. (I should not, I also am a volunteer in a small way. Consequently my responses to you on this issue have not been officially endorsed, and reflect my own view of the situation. I believe, however, that my view fairly represents the situation.) -
A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
patonomics - My apologies, this may be a language issue, but I cannot parse your last post. The "Galileo Gambit only suffices if you are correct. The mass of evidence supports anthropogenic global warming - if you disagree, you need to provide a better answer, which you have (so far) notably failed to do. Global warming via human generated greenhouse gases fits the last 150 years of spectroscopy, all the observations, multiple fingerprints, etc. What alternative do you point to? If any? Or are you simply presenting the argument from incredulity, which is a logical fallacy? -
patonomics at 14:14 PM on 23 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
actually thoughtful#57: You are entitled to hold your own thoughts, but that does NOT change my question about validation! -
patonomics at 14:11 PM on 23 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
muoncounter#55: about your claim "The only thing circular here is your persistent conviction that you and you alone are correct." - is not true. I am looking for validation from AGW claiming community, when someone claims to AGW be deterministic. If you think I am talking about myself, "and not about validation of science of AGW", then we are not in same frequency. And there is no point to discuss further. I am only looking for validation, and validation alone, if there are any. Else I do not need anything from anyone! -
actually thoughtful at 14:07 PM on 23 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
Patonomics - I have read your comments so far on this thread - your philosophy seems rooted in the Sophists of the ancient Greeks (although I mean the modern definition of sophistry). Also - if you are now invoking the (false) equivalence of climate "Skeptics" with Galileo (being a skeptic of an earth-centric universe) - there are two problems - 1) the entire body of science has had over 500 years to mature and expand - so basic misunderstandings, like the role of CO2 in the climate are very, very rare. Indeed, can you point to 3 cases of a basic misunderstanding about science that happened in the entire 20th century? and 2) Galileo himself built his theories upon two pillars - the body of science and his own observations. Both the body of science and observations now support the AGW theory (indeed even those vaunted 3% disagree dramatically on questions of where the warming is coming from (very few actual scientists claim no warming), where it is going, how fast, etc. ) So there isn't really an opportunity for a credible skeptic to invoke Galileo as a counter to the widespread (overwhelming) body of scientific evidence that the world is warming and man is to blame. -
The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
Eugene Scott is already aware of SkS (NPR link), and the NCSE is currently looking at climate change as an ideological issue in the classroom. I'm quite astounded that the "no government regulation" folks are more than willing to legislate facts in the same way that intelligent design/creationism activists are. And quite disappointed. Apparently well loved talking points triumph over ideology for some... -
patonomics at 14:02 PM on 23 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
John Hartz#53: I strongly expect it ("Climate models are mathematical representations of the climate system") should be like that, so I could not comprehend why none could produce cause and effect relationship equation as yet in this forum (contrary I am getting everything other than that equation). In establishing science, scientist first publish a research article clearly depicting their formula, their all assumptions and then validate to claim why their equation is deterministic. But what I get so far is not that clarity but pointer towards some models, which when it old is not good enough, but new models are better. You may agree mostly people get Nobel Prize after scientific community can validate their science over decades, can anyone explain why in AGW of CS (Climate Science), old models need not to be validated, telling its outdated, but all people are expected to BELIEVE in current models (that's not validated conclusively and only evolving, and still expected to think science of AGW is deterministic)?Moderator Response:[DB] Models are not the topic of this thread, For a further discussion of those, see either the How do Climate Models Work? thread or the Models are unreliable thread. Please continue any discussion of models there, not here.
Furthermore, this thread is A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming. Discussion of the philosophy of science on this thread have now run their course. As no meaningful fruit has arisen, it is now off-topic on this thread and subsequent pursuit of this topic will receive further, more severe moderation.
-
scaddenp at 14:02 PM on 23 January 2012Daily Climate Links: receive the latest climate blog posts, news and peer-reviewed science by email
B Ray, it might add water but it doesnt stay in atmosphere. The water-holding capacity of the atmosphere is ultimately determined by temperature. -
John Hartz at 13:57 PM on 23 January 2012How do Climate Models Work?
There is considerable confidence that climate models provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. This confidence comes from the foundation of the models in accepted physical principles and from their ability to reproduce observed features of current climate and past climate changes. Confidence in model estimates is higher for some climate variables (e.g., temperature) than for others (e.g., precipitation). Over several decades of development, models have consistently provided a robust and unambiguous picture of significant climate warming in response to increasing greenhouse gases. Source: “Frequently Asked Question 8.1: How Reliable Are the Models Used to Make Projections of Future Climate Change?”, Working Group 1: The Physical Science Basis, UN IPPC Click here to access this document. -
muoncounter at 13:55 PM on 23 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
patonomics#52: Concepts of radiative forcing pre-date the IPCC report of 2001. Keep in mind that IPCC documents are merely reviews of the state of the science at the time of issue - the basic research was done by others. See for example Hansen et al 1997. The only thing circular here is your persistent conviction that you and you alone are correct. You've been referred to numerous reference documents; the evidence for the theory that you're trying to dispute is readily available. -
patonomics at 13:46 PM on 23 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
DSL#50: I do not claim to be Climate Scientist or Climate Professional and neither likely to be one in near future. I am looking for support if someone already validate in a form "any science validate itself non-confusingly (with out circular logic to depend)". I have my own profession to look after. My present interest is to check only if there are substantial Deterministic validation or not. I am not going to read and read in litterateurs and compete with those who are into full time Climate Scientist as their job. After reading your comments I recall about, Italian physicist Galileo Galilei, when he questioned traditional wisdom of majority, it infuriated the majority who are connected by consensus with "strong theoretical evidence" based on assumptions! I hope I have not infuriate you. That is not my intention or remotely target and I positively hope you do not have similar target either. I like your philosophical response for a needed scientific Validity on curiosity. I am not sure if someone might have better understanding about science with your philosophical response! -
John Hartz at 13:39 PM on 23 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
Patonomics: “Climate models are mathematical representations of the climate system, expressed as computer codes and run on powerful computers. One source of confidence in models comes from the fact that model fundamentals are based on established physical laws, such as conservation of mass, energy and momentum, along with a wealth of observations.” Source: “Frequently Asked Question 8.1: How Reliable Are the Models Used to Make Projections of Future Climate Change?”, Working Group 1: The Physical Science Basis, UN IPPC Click here to access this document, -
Tom Dayton at 13:31 PM on 23 January 2012The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
I emailed to Dr. Johnson a heads-up about Skeptical Science's Arguments pages. Not going to tweet or Facebook to the radio program, so it would be nice if somebody else did. -
patonomics at 13:22 PM on 23 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
muoncounter#49: I have checked 2 links you had mentioned, and all records point ultimately lead to [Ramaswamy et al., 2001 - you claimed as "Chapter 6 of the 2001 TAR, which is somewhat out of date" - http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-06.PDF] only, which starts with the assumption. . I think starting with assumption, no one, yes no one need to prove the assumption, but safely can use the "circularity" logic as mentioned in #38 -
Wcalvin@uw.edu at 13:18 PM on 23 January 2012It's a 1500 year cycle
1500-year cycles... It is the iceberg armadas (Heinrich events) that show the 1470-year cycle. The Dangaard-Oschger events are the fast (10yr) cooling and even faster (2-4yr) rewarmings of 10C, several dozen in the last ice age. As Stefan Rahmstorf noted, some coincide with the iceberg armadas, some don't. It is not correct to speak of a D-O Cycle. The rapidity of the warming is thought to be due to the albedo positive feedback, same thing as is getting started in the Arctic Ocean today but involving the entire North Atlantic Ocean. -
B Ray at 13:16 PM on 23 January 2012Daily Climate Links: receive the latest climate blog posts, news and peer-reviewed science by email
Two questions please (i)On the accepted efficacy of natural gas (compared with coal)in lowering emission of CO2 per unit of energy production - does this allow for the effect of "new" water emitted as vapour (a ghg)in the combustion of natural gas. Perhaps the new water is quickly precipitated from the atmosphere? (ii)In transitting to a lower carbon economy could you provide a pithy reference on the benefits of the conversion from coal to gas in electrical power generation? -
skywatcher at 13:12 PM on 23 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
patonomics #49, I wonder if you can expand on any disagreements you might have with what I wrote? Or by having "no questions", do you agree with the two statements I made that you quoted? I have spent a great deal of time in cold places with inclement weather doing fieldwork aimed at understanding some aspect of Earth surface processes, and a great deal of that time I was not deriving an equation(!). I was increasing the level of understanding of some processes or of the past climate of the area, yet you seem to suggest that is not valid science? Or have you followed the links I provided (Richard Alley, Spencer Weart, 10 human fingerprints) and found specifically where there are fundamental problems with the theory of climate as it is understood today? I would be particularly interested, in the light of your quote in #44, whether you have watched the Richard Alley presentation, where quite a lot of the evidence of Earth's climate sensitivity under different past conditions was discussed (see also Knutti and Hegerl 2008). General unfounded claims of fundamental failings within the field of climate science ought to be supported with evidence if they are not going to be dismissed as spurious. -
DSL at 13:00 PM on 23 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
Patonomics, every so often someone shows up on SkS asking for 100% certainty that the theory is true. It sounds like you're willing to spend a lot of time telling people here things that they already know. If you want absolute proof that atmospheric CO2 provides additional warming to the troposphere, surface, and ocean, too bad. You're not going to get it. You're going to get theory. And you're going to get observations. The alternative to the theory of AGW is . . . what? Or perhaps there is no way to theorize the climate, because there are simply too many variables. In that case, there is no way to theorize anything, because all "things" exist within the same universal context. Words, words, words. If you're philosophically incapable of accepting an answer, why ask the question of those who are capable of accepting the answer? If you are capable, you should realize that no climate scientist would take the "assumption" you point to as a simple assumption. There is strong theoretical evidence that the relationship exists. If you're truly concerned and not simply trolling like an overexcited philosophy major, read Spencer Weart's The Discovery of Global Warming. -
muoncounter at 12:40 PM on 23 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
patonomics#44 Your friend has chosen a single sentence out of the 'Executive Summary' of Chapter 6 of the 2001 TAR, which is somewhat out of date. This hardly constitutes thorough scientific research. I suggest you review the following pages of Chapter 6 on Radiative Forcing, where the research is thoroughly discussed. Or consider Chapter 2 section 2.2 of the AR4 report of 2007: The concept [of radiative forcing] arose from early studies of the climate response to changes in solar insolation and CO2, using simple radiative-convective models. However, it has proven to be particularly applicable for the assessment of the climate impact of LLGHGs. -- emphasis added These foundational questions should make it clear to you that you should do a significant amount of reading before summarily deciding that climate science is circular, non-falsifiable or similarly flawed. -
patonomics at 12:38 PM on 23 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
What are laws of nature? What does it mean to say that one thing caused another? It is natural to suppose: that these observations provide a neutral testing-ground for competing theories; that they can reveal how theories should be modified, and that they could tell us which theory is true. . . . .that the situation is not as clear-cut as it might appear. http://www.ice.cam.ac.uk/component/courses/?view=course&cid=4133 -
patonomics at 12:27 PM on 23 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
Philippe Chantreau#45: Respected moderator deleted the part I put for you in #36, so I put a brief fraction in #38 May I personally recommend you to read the following 2 books when you get time, it might surprise you (it does to me at least in 2011) 1. What Is This Thing Called Science? - by Alan F. Chalmers 2. Science, Common Sense and Scepticism - by Alan Musgrave -
Bernard J. at 12:23 PM on 23 January 2012The National Center for Science Education defends climate science in high schools
Tom Dayton at #1. That is indeed a worrying recount. What that radio exercise shows is how a pseudoscientifically-influenced teen resists understanding proper science when it is explained to her, rather than how the science is, in and of itself, unconvincing. Sadly, many in the audience would not understand the very significant difference between the two situations. Of course, knowing that youth conditioned to denialism are not receptive to rational explanation is a useful thing, so it's not a completely wasted exercise. However, what it tells us is that a better forum than a radio stunt is required for delivery of real science to ideologically-indoctrinated denialist kids. It doesn't tell us that there is any problem with the science itself, no matter how much that will be the impression left in the minds of many who listened. I hope that the efforts of the National Center for Science Education go a long way to reversing this fundamentalist conservative resistance to rationalism. -
patonomics at 12:18 PM on 23 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
Philippe Chantreau#45: I respect your communication. I completely understand your statement - "And I will not agree to disagree with you in the sense implying that we hold different, equally valid opinions. There is a right answer." . . . . . We just could not agree together. - but I respect you. Thank you very much for your clear communication so far. -
Philippe Chantreau at 11:59 AM on 23 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
Patonomics I read your link from the University of Cambrige and I do not see at all how it supports the idea of a hierarchy between hypothesis, law and theory. I also read your link to the Guardian article and I see nothing showing that U. of Cambridge claims to be number one. The Guardian article ranks it as number one. I did not spend enough time on it to see what were their criteria. I'm sure if the N.Y. Times was doing a ranking of best Physics Universities in the World, they would come up with something different. It seems you are now trying to go to a hierarchy of universities so as to establish that what comes out of one is "better" than what comes out of another. I'll add that one of my links about the vanity of a hierarchy of concepts came from Berkeley, ranking #5 in the Guardian list. And I will not agree to disagree with you in the sense implying that we hold different, equally valid opinions. There is a right answer. A hierarchy of certainty for vastly different concepts has no merit. This is drifting far off the topic of this thread, however, and I will not pursue it any longer. -
Bert from Eltham at 11:56 AM on 23 January 2012Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
I am so dismayed at this duplicity that I deleted some dollars from my vast wealth and made a donation to SkS. I urge anyone who thinks that the great unpaid work they are doing is worthwhile to do the same. Remember it may not be much individually but together it becomes a torrent. However pointless it is for the occupants to bicker over the direction of a crashing vehicle I like many have nowhere else to go when it is our planet Earth. Bert -
patonomics at 11:52 AM on 23 January 2012A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming
muoncounter#42: My close friend shared with me the following reference, please guide me shall we understand Physics/Physical Science (yes NOT engineering) with assumption alone? "The practical appeal of the radiative forcing concept is due, in the main, to the assumption that there exists a general relationship between the global mean forcing and the global mean equilibrium surface temperature response (i.e., the global mean climate sensitivity parameter, λ) which is similar for all the different types of forcings." Source - http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-06.PDF
Prev 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 Next
