|
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
There's a big differnce between laws of physics that are supposedly constant through time |
[aside]Actually, the very derivation of these "laws" are contingent on assumptions of temporal and spatial invariance. That these assumptions are correct is taken on faith.[/aside]
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
What I'm getting at is the best we can do is what we have now. Maybe someday our science will be able to put a definite all-encompassing law on gravity, and maybe even make a fully functional climate model. However, right now we don't have that. We don't have "god damn solid" science on this issue, or I assure you this would not be a topic of conversation. Right now we have very limited "science" on the matter, and in my opinion, and in the opinion of many others, it is very weak science. We are able to say that today is warmer or cooler than yesterday, but we can put very little context behind it. |
As stated in one of my previous posts (and over and over again in the thread I linked to) I'm talking about greenhouse gases ability to reflect heat emission back to Earth. This *is* "god damned solid":
From the EPA:
| quote: | | "According to the National Academy of Sciences, the Earth's surface temperature has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century, with accelerated warming during the past two decades. There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. Human activities have altered the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of greenhouse gases (http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalw...ssions.html#GHG) - primarily carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. The heat-trapping property of these gases is undisputed although uncertainties (http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalw...ertainties.html) exist about exactly how earth's climate responds to them." |
"Undisputed" it says.
Now given that greenhouse gases reflect heat emission, it's a logical consequence that increased volume of these in the atmosphere, all other things being equal, leads to raised temperatures or less ice or more steam (the latter of which would contribute even further to heating).
| quote: | Originally posted by NebulousQ
Pop science and true science are two completely different things.
...
You don't believe me? Ask your physics professor why a positive charge is attracted to a negative charge and why when dealing with quantum physics many attractions are directly proportional to distance instead of inversely? |
Don't patronize me. You have still to face up to my challenge about documenting your claims on "misinformation being spewed" by "both sides".
On that matter, I do think that it's interesting that people who advocate the view that no global warming is taking place, often accuse people advocating the opposite view for belonging to some world-wide conspiracy to hurt the US. This is a most paranoid worldview.
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
You probably should feel that way, especially given that even the dubious IPCC Third Assessment Report concedes, in practically every section, that model uncertainties require more critical assessment than is currently possible in order to draw reliable and specific conclusions regarding many issues related to global warming.
Of course, there's also the small matter of their failure to explain the overwhelming lack of correlation between recorded climate variations and the reconstructed pCO2 in the phanerozoic eon...
But I suppose small things like 500 million years of geological history aren't that relevant to a true believer, or a sufficiently motivated "scientist." |
Never one for passing on the chance of scornfully ridiculing your opponents?
Anyway, as I wrote in my answer to Neo, when talking about rock solid science, I'm talking about greenhouse gases ability to reflect heat emission. Unlike Neo, you have been told so before (in the thread I linked to), and there's really no excuse for misrepresenting my statement, and then attack this representation.
That being said, I'd sure like to address your arguments, but they're kind of vaguely stated, so it's like fighting ghosts. For instance, I took a look at the IPCC report, to see how it addressed the science of greenhouse gases, but I found no statements about unusable models in any of those sections? I did see that the entire report had a chapter on model critique. This is to be expected of a scientific report, and from what I saw there, it was most dutifully explained, so that the assumptions for the strengths of the conclusions of the report were quite clear?
As to the relationship between CO_2 and average temperature over time, I'm unsure of what specific study/posed problem you're referring to. I could certainly think of explanations for such a lack (e.g. the estimated CO_2 concentrations must have been calculated from some model itself, there's other greenhouse gases, melting of ice takes up a lot of energy, etc.), but with no clear definition of setting it's useless.
Turning to the issue of whether the Earth *is* heating and if so whether CO_2 emissions by man contribute significantly to this, or other causes are to blame, I think that the above statement by the NAS is pretty clear on what way the jury is leaning. Further, in response to the infamous OISM-petition, the NAS reacted in this way:
| quote: | | The NAS issued an unusually blunt formal response to the petition drive. "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal," it stated in a news release. "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy." In fact, it pointed out, its own prior published study had shown that "even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises." |
Considering the lack of loads of observational data, I think this statement together with the conclusions of the IPCC report is as close to a scientific validation that we can get.
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
As the others have eloquently stated, nothing is unambiguous in science.
The only facts we can conclude are based on the data we collected within our tiny slice of time.
I was never a firm believer in the dogma of "terrestrial scientific fact" as it's always being dispeled by the wonders of nature.
Call me a romantic if you wish, I see myself more as understanding our true place in this world; to look in awe and make of it what we can. |
Sounds beautiful, but I still hold you to your previous empathy with Neo's statements on the undecidability of it all being sufficient cause for inaction: I seem to remember you having defended the Iraq war as a result of reasonable evidence of WMDs in Iraq? If that's correct, how do you merit acting on clearly non-conclusive evidence such as was the case, but not on evidence on global warming which is seemingly better than the WMD-evidence?
|
