Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Environment

Environment Environmental Politics Forum - Environmental issues, global warming, pollution, and proposals


Thanks Tree103Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 5th, 2017, 11:06 AM   #91
Senior Member
 
Nwolfe35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Posts: 14,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clara007 View Post
Gravity (like most scientific studies) WAS at one time a theory. I'm sure Isaac Newton was scoffed at--just as you scoff at climate change. There are some today that STILL say gravity is only a theory. The theory of gravity violates common sense in many ways. Adherents have a hard time explaining, for instance, why airplanes do not fall. Since anti-gravity was rejected by the scientific establishment, they resorted to lots of hand-waving. The theory, if taken seriously, implies that the default position for all airplanes is on the ground. Gravity totally fails to explain why Saturn has rings and Jupiter does not. It utterly fails to account for obesity. In fact, what it does "explain" is far outweighed by what it does not explain.The US Patent Office has never issued a patent for anti-gravity. Why is this?
Scientists begin with theories. Scientists have been studying climate for decades, all over the globe. They have studied ancient climates. Climate science is hardly a recent phenomena, but the politics is-- ever since Al Gore (a Democrat) brought climate change to the front burner. If Reagan had touted it, you'd be ON board.
It's ridiculous.
You are making the same mistake they are. You are confusing the observation of gravity with the explanation of the cause of the observation.

Gravitation is a fact. Objects with mass exert an attractive force on each other.

WHY this happens is the theory.

A Theory never becomes a "fact". Theory is the best current explanation for a given observation.

When we burn a piece of paper a chemical reaction takes place, this is an observable fact. WHY this reaction takes place is explained by Atomic Theory (what makes up atoms and how atoms interact)

Global Warming is an observable fact. The current best explanation is the theory of man made climate change. This means other hypotheses have been put forward and, for one reason or another, they have been rejected.

Could the theory be wrong? Yes, but unless evidence/information is found that disproves the theory it is the current best explanation.

This leads to another misunderstanding about science. Scientists don't try to "prove" a theory correct. They try to prove it wrong! The idea that scientists are fudging the results to prove man made global warming is silly. There is far more reward in DISPROVING it.
Nwolfe35 is offline  
Old January 5th, 2017, 11:35 AM   #92
forgot my old user name
 
right to left's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,570
Quote:
Originally Posted by coke View Post
Here is my question. What happens if the ice caps melt
That's the question climatologists, physicists and computer modellers are trying to figure out right now. Some clues can be learned from past hot spells, like the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) early in the Cenozoic - 55 millions years ago. We do know it's pegged as a 'minor' extinction period (compared to the five big ones) with species dieoffs that impacted some zones greater than others.

Some paleontologists believe the evidence is conclusive that temperatures were too high for any land creatures (plant or animal) to exist in the Tropic Zone. But there were no humans on Earth at the time! Therefore no artificial barriers to species migrations; so land animals and even sea creatures migrated north and south away from the tropics. One interesting anecdote was a species of large alligators was living in the open water of the Arctic Ocean at that time...long enough to develop polar adaptations like night vision for the long winter nights. But I think we can take it as a given that human civilization crap puts such a heavy load on ecosystems already..besides the aforementioned barriers, that conditions similar to the PETM will mean mass extinction this time!

One effect that can be taken as a given is: according to physicists, the complete loss of ice will mean loss of control over limits to warming. That's something that seems easy enough to understand, when you consider that you're drink starts warming up fast after all the ice is melted!
Thanks from imaginethat

Last edited by right to left; January 5th, 2017 at 11:37 AM. Reason: crucial spelling mistake
right to left is offline  
Old January 5th, 2017, 11:52 AM   #93
forgot my old user name
 
right to left's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,570
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
You are making the same mistake they are. You are confusing the observation of gravity with the explanation of the cause of the observation.

Gravitation is a fact. Objects with mass exert an attractive force on each other.

WHY this happens is the theory.

A Theory never becomes a "fact". Theory is the best current explanation for a given observation.

When we burn a piece of paper a chemical reaction takes place, this is an observable fact. WHY this reaction takes place is explained by Atomic Theory (what makes up atoms and how atoms interact)

Global Warming is an observable fact. The current best explanation is the theory of man made climate change. This means other hypotheses have been put forward and, for one reason or another, they have been rejected.

Could the theory be wrong? Yes, but unless evidence/information is found that disproves the theory it is the current best explanation.

This leads to another misunderstanding about science. Scientists don't try to "prove" a theory correct. They try to prove it wrong! The idea that scientists are fudging the results to prove man made global warming is silly. There is far more reward in DISPROVING it.
As I've heard from lectures by philosophers of science, modern science doesn't create "laws" such as Newton's "law" of gravity, because scientists have learned the hard way that our universe and our local corner of it, are much more difficult to fully understand than during simpler times when the scientific method was just beginning to be put to use.

So, we'll always have a "theory" of gravity, rather than a law, because every theory can never be placed up on a pedestal of perfection and never subject to challenge. We're getting a taste of this from the other science story here claiming there's a problem with Newton's inverse square law on large scales...therefore get rid of long-proposed dark matter that may not be needed to explain how galaxies maintain their integrity.

The big problem is popular use of the term "theory" and the way it differs from scientific use, where it has to be a reliable explanation of facts. Such as the stock creationist argument:"evolution is ONLY a THEORY."
Thanks from Daws77
right to left is offline  
Old January 5th, 2017, 12:09 PM   #94
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: LA LA Land North
Posts: 26,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
You are making the same mistake they are. You are confusing the observation of gravity with the explanation of the cause of the observation.

Gravitation is a fact. Objects with mass exert an attractive force on each other.

WHY this happens is the theory.

A Theory never becomes a "fact". Theory is the best current explanation for a given observation.

When we burn a piece of paper a chemical reaction takes place, this is an observable fact. WHY this reaction takes place is explained by Atomic Theory (what makes up atoms and how atoms interact)

Global Warming is an observable fact. The current best explanation is the theory of man made climate change. This means other hypotheses have been put forward and, for one reason or another, they have been rejected.

Could the theory be wrong? Yes, but unless evidence/information is found that disproves the theory it is the current best explanation.

This leads to another misunderstanding about science. Scientists don't try to "prove" a theory correct. They try to prove it wrong! The idea that scientists are fudging the results to prove man made global warming is silly. There is far more reward in DISPROVING it.
Have you never gotten into a discussion with a philosophical type who argues that even though if you let go of a rock and see it fall to the ground a million times it doesn't prove that next time it will?

So even there some pragmatists will argue that gravity is not proven. On the basis they claim to advocate, there are no facts.

That is just an amusing aside. Your post is right-on.
Thanks from Daws77
RNG is offline  
Old January 5th, 2017, 12:17 PM   #95
Banned
 
coke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: nunya
Posts: 12,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by right to left View Post
That's the question climatologists, physicists and computer modellers are trying to figure out right now. Some clues can be learned from past hot spells, like the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) early in the Cenozoic - 55 millions years ago. We do know it's pegged as a 'minor' extinction period (compared to the five big ones) with species dieoffs that impacted some zones greater than others.

Some paleontologists believe the evidence is conclusive that temperatures were too high for any land creatures (plant or animal) to exist in the Tropic Zone. But there were no humans on Earth at the time! Therefore no artificial barriers to species migrations; so land animals and even sea creatures migrated north and south away from the tropics. One interesting anecdote was a species of large alligators was living in the open water of the Arctic Ocean at that time...long enough to develop polar adaptations like night vision for the long winter nights. But I think we can take it as a given that human civilization crap puts such a heavy load on ecosystems already..besides the aforementioned barriers, that conditions similar to the PETM will mean mass extinction this time!

One effect that can be taken as a given is: according to physicists, the complete loss of ice will mean loss of control over limits to warming. That's something that seems easy enough to understand, when you consider that you're drink starts warming up fast after all the ice is melted!
What was the average temperature of the earth during that time period when the warming began compared to now?
coke is offline  
Old January 5th, 2017, 02:04 PM   #96
forgot my old user name
 
right to left's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,570
Quote:
Originally Posted by coke View Post
What was the average temperature of the earth during that time period when the warming began compared to now?
Just took a quick glance at the Wiki entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoc...hermal_Maximum

Temps were up to 8 degrees C warmer than today, but the duration of the PETM and the temperature record are still too uncertain to take what they give as average temperature for a given.
right to left is offline  
Old January 5th, 2017, 05:35 PM   #97
Banned
 
coke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: nunya
Posts: 12,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by right to left View Post
Just took a quick glance at the Wiki entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoc...hermal_Maximum

Temps were up to 8 degrees C warmer than today, but the duration of the PETM and the temperature record are still too uncertain to take what they give as average temperature for a given.
Quote:
During the PETM, the global mean temperature appears to have risen by as much as 5-8C (9-14F) to an average temperature as high as 73F.
https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...rths-ever-been
73-14=59. Hmmm, isnt that ironic. So apparently the AVERAGE temp. at the START of PETM was about what it is now or higher. Yet, were in the middle of a massive global warming. Interesting to say the least.
coke is offline  
Old January 5th, 2017, 07:04 PM   #98
Senior Member
 
justoneman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: chicago
Posts: 2,699
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daws77 View Post
So you I tell you electricity is burning coal and you tell me coal is a fossil fuel and I am left to gather you do not want electricity as your alternative fuel to gasoline and then you link some crap that has electricity as an alternative fuel.


Again I say to you: Electricity is powered by coal and that is more of a "stone age" fuel than is gasoline.

full circle. Your turn.
justoneman is offline  
Old January 6th, 2017, 12:45 AM   #99
forgot my old user name
 
right to left's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,570
Quote:
Originally Posted by coke View Post
https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...rths-ever-been
73-14=59. Hmmm, isnt that ironic. So apparently the AVERAGE temp. at the START of PETM was about what it is now or higher. Yet, were in the middle of a massive global warming. Interesting to say the least.
That's not what you're article says!
Quote:
an average temperature as high as 73F. (Again, todays global average is shy of 60F.) At roughly the same time, paleoclimate data like fossilized phytoplankton and ocean sediments record a massive release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, at least doubling or possibly even quadrupling the background concentrations.
What has to be taken into consideration looking at today's climate data is we're just at the start of a rapid runup in CO2 and CH4 emissions. When I was born, the atmospheric CO2 readings that had recently started at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, were still below 320 ppm. 60 years later...a blink of an eye for planetary changes, and here we are over 405 and never to return below 400 ppm again for the next 500 to 1000 years!
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/

The full impact of the climate forcing we've started...and are accelerating according to the measurements...are still a long way off, and no one knows for sure what the grand experiment with our life support system will do in the longer term future, but it's not going to be good! Add together all the changes we're still making, and what we use and destroy as a species, and best case scenarios are bad for civilization/ worst case scenarios factoring in ongoing mass extinction we've already started, and it will be an extinction that takes out most complex life...including us!
right to left is offline  
Old January 6th, 2017, 03:57 AM   #100
Senior Member
 
Clara007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Arizona
Posts: 7,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
You are making the same mistake they are. You are confusing the observation of gravity with the explanation of the cause of the observation.

Gravitation is a fact. Objects with mass exert an attractive force on each other.

WHY this happens is the theory.

A Theory never becomes a "fact". Theory is the best current explanation for a given observation.

When we burn a piece of paper a chemical reaction takes place, this is an observable fact. WHY this reaction takes place is explained by Atomic Theory (what makes up atoms and how atoms interact)

Global Warming is an observable fact. The current best explanation is the theory of man made climate change. This means other hypotheses have been put forward and, for one reason or another, they have been rejected.

Could the theory be wrong? Yes, but unless evidence/information is found that disproves the theory it is the current best explanation.

This leads to another misunderstanding about science. Scientists don't try to "prove" a theory correct. They try to prove it wrong! The idea that scientists are fudging the results to prove man made global warming is silly. There is far more reward in DISPROVING it.


In my opinion, you are splitting hairs. The every day John Doe doesn't think like that. They/we do not separate fact and theory if they seem one and the same. Most people think that if we can see it, smell it, touch it, use it and/or explain it (IF I hold this rock in the air and drop it, IT WILL FALL)....it's a fact.
Most of us don't sit and ponder it. Now you can call that a mistake or inaccurate or unscientific, but that's the norm.
AND you missed my point. The Flat Earth Society still exists. One in four Americans think the sun rotates the earth and climate deniers aren't bending.
Thanks from Daws77
Clara007 is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Environment

Tags
change, climate, republicans



Search tags for this page
Click on a term to search for related topics.
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Here's All The Nonsense 2016 Republicans Have Spouted About Climate Change LongWinded Current Events 10 December 3rd, 2015 01:38 AM
Republicans React to Climate Change Report With Denial and Hatred klaatu Current Events 9 August 9th, 2014 06:35 PM
Murdoch on climate change. roastpork Environment 11 July 24th, 2014 06:00 AM
The LIABILITY, for climate change: bobgnote Environment 34 December 26th, 2013 04:00 AM
fixing climate change webguy4 Environment 31 May 17th, 2013 02:01 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.