| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Correlation is not causation anyone who took even remedial science knows that.
That's true, but let's not forget that a causal relationship typically does show up as a correlation in data. In other words, correlation doesn't disprove causation.
Correlation is not causation anyone who took even remedial science knows that.That's true, but let's not forget that a causal relationship typically does show up as a correlation in data. In other words, correlation doesn't disprove causation.
In fact, correlation is generally very strong evidence supporting causation, as anyone who's taken more than remedial science knows.
Basically, if you have a robust correlation between A and B, there are three possibilities.
1) A causes B
2) B causes A
3) A third effect, C, causes both A and B.
The idea that robust correlations just happen by chance is simply wrong. That's basically what the whole idea of "correlation" was designed to exclude.
So in the instant case, we have three possibilities.
1) Global warming causes increased atmospheric emissions.
2) Increased atmospheric emissions caused global warming
3) Something else caused both increased atmospheric emissions and global warming.
If KK thinks that 1) or 3) is more plausible than 2), I'm sure he would be happy to provide evidence instead of half-understood slogans.
Remember the graph by Robert Simmon CO2 concentration at the top and temperature Anomoly at the bottom?
That's actually a very cool graph.
1) A causes B
2) B causes A
3) A third effect, C, causes both A and B.
As a practicing geologist, I actually see (3) pretty often.
In the case of AGW, if I understand it correctly, we're seeing (1), (2), and (3).
Correlation is not causation anyone who took even remedial science knows that.
The most rapid warming in history is likewise more hyperbole than science the famous hockey stick graph and all is utter nonsense, pure scare tactics.
I imagine you are referring to this
Is that correct?
In reference to this
Perhaps you would be interested in this book?
Of interest, It could be interesting to see how this has affected public opinion in the time ensuing afterwards.
In regards to the research I'd think this from the Wikipedia article linked above is relavant, though admittedly not that official as it is only Wiki rather than a specific source document
Because of the timing, scientists, policy makers and public relations experts said that the release of emails was a smear campaign intended to undermine the climate conference.[13] In response to the controversy, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released statements supporting the scientific consensus that the Earth's mean surface temperature had been rising for decades, with the AAAS concluding "based on multiple lines of scientific evidence that global climate change caused by human activities is now underway...it is a growing threat to society."[14]Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[15] However, the reports called on the scientists to avoid any such allegations in the future by taking steps to regain public confidence in their work, for example by opening up access to their supporting data, processing methods and software, and by promptly honouring freedom of information requests.[16] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations.[17]
Is that correct?
Is that correct?My comment on that from 2010.
Could I quote you on something like that. Without quoting you...but trying to bring up a similar idea...
I think this is the main problem in regards to misunderstanding from both sides in CC...both skeptics and others alike.
As I pointed out to my post with Irontruth...a majority of the studies and articles that are official are behind paywalls.
Now I might pay for it (actually my spouse...and the organizations connected...so I get it as a side effect), but I think most are not willing to pay to read things like that.
Instead, it's up to the media to give their interpretations...some of which are good (there are those with science backgrounds), but occasionally some that are not so good (those who may only have a journalist background and no real interest in the science).
Transparency is still a problem today, most likely. The thing is, the CC researchers are not PR folks, and they are probably doing the best they can (afterall, if you publish isn't that transparency...I suppose that's the thinking for some...but with much of it pay to read...or otherwise...I think it could be seen as a LOT of it as being NON-Transparent still).
[I freely admit I'm not a scientist...I worked in another field for years...I just try to help out and volunteer with their projects and research when able. However, I think I'm more likely to talk about this stuff on places like here than they are even. Last thing one of my relatives wants to do when they come home is discuss work or work like topics. Instead they want to try to play the stock market...and get rich off of it...perhaps someday they will. Currently they are only about break even though].
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder what the actual unaltered data is. The problem with altering data EVEN to supposedly make it more accurate is that you are at the mercy of the people altering the data. One corrupt climate scientist can alter a LOT of data. And those he sides with get stuck defending his work or looking like frauds. PEOPLE are flawed. I suspect people like us will never know the whole real truth.
The best we can do is accept what we hear with a grain of salt and do our best to make the planet better for everyone.
The actual "unaltered data" is a whole pile of numbers, dates, and places. that would fill a library full of books. Science is in the parsing of that data into a whole which actually tells us something. This parsing out includes throwing out individual data points that show major statistical deviation due to factors such as equipment failure or loss. That's why you have to look at the whole, as opposed to individual pieces of data such as the weird result from HoleInTheWall in the county of WhoecaresWhere because some homeless guy has been running a barrel fire underneath the sensor platform. It's why the theories are gathered from HUGE amounts of data over time. Focusing on the "unaltered data" to this extreme is a severe case of missing the forest for the trees.
Someone mentioned Galileo or Copernicus...who spoke against the current science of their day when it was possible that actually a majority really DID agree, and it was NOT in their favor typically. (Copernicus's school of thought was tossed aside for many years and argued against...even while gaining some popularity...until Galileo was placed under life arrest [house arrest] for adhering to it somewhat...if I recall).
The Church's main case against Galileo is that he broke his promise to his sponsor, the Pope, that he would publish his work as theory (which it was) and not proven fact (which it was not). Much of the facts about the trial was misrepresented, often by Galileo himself who was very big on self-promotion and was not hesitant to lie about the details, such as the claim that he muttered "Yet it moves, which he didn't.
Galileo did have observations, but the SCIENCE to prove his theory would wait until Kepler and Newton.
As it was the popular support for science limited what the Church could against Gailileo for his breach of conduct. The Church no longer had the lattitude to burn people like Giordano Bruno, so it basically settled for house arrest, which was not that much of a real handicap given that Galileo had already gotten himself almost totally blind for staring at the Sun too much with his telescope.
Galileo did have observations, but the SCIENCE to prove his theory would wait until Kepler and Newton.
There are so many things wrong with this sentence that it's breaking my brain just to read it.
Please! Don't help.
Galileo did have observations, but the SCIENCE to prove his theory would wait until Kepler and Newton.There are so many things wrong with this sentence that it's breaking my brain just to read it.
Please! Don't help.
Observations alone aren't science, any more than a pile of degree of humidity readings taken by themselves alone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Math alone isn't science, either.
And theories don't get "proven."
Kepler published Astronomia Nova in 1609; Galileo's spat with the Grand Duchess over heliocentrism, before the inquisition got wind of it, wasn't until 1613 (Galileo, far being a source of Kepler's work, actually rejected a lot of it--e.g., lunar tides and elliptical orbits).
And so on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
Honestly, sometimes it feels like you approach these discussions with a religious belief that no one but you is interested in science. You've been making the same claim for a year or two, even though several other people actually do post and comment about the science of the topic.
Then, when someone comes in and gets political, and those people point out that that person is b+!!$%!@, you get on us for not being scientific. You even ignore the fact that several people in this thread hold some serious scientific degrees.
You see what you want to see in this discussion, just as much as you accuse everyone else doing it. We all do it, but you act like you're above it all and it gets tiring.
Oh yes, those money hungry climate scientists, they're the ones with the absurd salaries. Hasn't this particular nonsensical conspiracy theory been shown to be wrong at least three dozen different ways in just this thread?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you are a climate scientist and you want government grants, you have to continue to keep correlating the same thing namely CO2, because it is the most direct route to taxation, then your proposals need to come in with the politically correct ideology.
Some of these grants pay absurd salaries for extended periods of time....
as someone who has worked on NSF grants, this statement is so far from reality its funny. For most folks, A good chunk if not most of a grant doesn't go to pad a professor's salary, it goes to equipment, department/institution overhead, field work, technicians and staff, and miscellaneous stuff such as covering the cost of journal publication etc. And just so we are clear, those technicians aren't making the big bucks either. I am a postdoc on a NSF grant, and I am broke at the end of each month, despite living in a tiny studio apartment that is probably smaller than some prison cells.
On top of that, each grant often require months of work and preparation (which has to be juggled with teaching, administrative responsibilities, and research), all so you can submit a proposal...that even if it's amazing will probably not be funded (the current funding rate of NSF in my field is 3%)
The idea that everyone is going with the flow is also just plain ridiculous. You want a high impact paper that all but ensures a great job and tenure? Overturn an existing dogma or popular idea in the literature. Scientists are just in too much competition for resources and jobs to somehow all agree on some sort of nebulous climate change conspiracy. If anything, they would be better off arguing about the basics still, since that would provide more opportunities to test and debate things, and more angles for further grants to explore.
Now if you want to make big bucks without devoting every waking minute to writing grant proposals (Research is not at all a 9-5 job), go get a job in oil. I have a friend who did his MS in paleontology and did just that: Two years in he was complaining (seriously) that he was making more money than he knew what to do with.
If you are a climate scientist and you want government grants, you have to continue to keep correlating the same thing namely CO2, because it is the most direct route to taxation, then your proposals need to come in with the politically correct ideology.
Some of these grants pay absurd salaries for extended periods of time....
Wait, you want me to believe that a majority of the House and Senate believe in climate change, and will only fund programs that push CO2? Are you claiming that the Republican party is only pushing forward the CO2 correlation?
Because the Republican party controls both of those bodies.
Also, what do you consider an absurd salary?
Remember, any number you say, there will be a larger number of people earning that at ExxonMobil than there will be through climate change research grants.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, it's derived from an ice core, so... :]That's actually a very cool graph.Remember the graph by Robert Simmon CO2 concentration at the top and temperature Anomoly at the bottom?
An ice core BONG though?
If you are a climate scientist and you want government grants, you have to continue to keep correlating the same thing namely CO2, because it is the most direct route to taxation, then your proposals need to come in with the politically correct ideology.
Some of these grants pay absurd salaries for extended periods of time....
Well yeah, I mean if you want to study the curvature of the earth you don't start with the assumption that the earth is flat. And then expect to be funded.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Back to that 200 year graph of "temperature anomaly", the less than one degree over two centuries one.
I'm going to assume that you are referring to this graph which you posted previously and originally described as;
Remember the graph by Robert Simmon CO2 concentration at the top and temperature Anomoly at the bottom?
That global 200 years in that scary red line is one (1) degree of global warming....over two centuries!!!
However, that raises a few small problems;
- The graph shows a period from 1880 to 2000. 120 years. Not 200.
- The graph does not show CO2 concentration on the top
- The graph was not created by Robert Simmon
The graph DOES show about 1 C warming, but most of that warming occurs after 1980.
Someone tell me how half a degree a century shows any statistically significant warming and then for bonus how this is a problem....
Setting aside the fact that the warming rate is much higher than that, and increasing over time (currently about 0.16 C per decade... more than triple the rate you cite), even half a degree per century would still be dangerously rapid warming. That would get us to 2 C around 2100. Another 100 years beyond that point we're looking at nearly half the human race needing to relocate due to coastal flooding. Three hundred years after that most of the planet would be uninhabitable.
Given that we're currently at about 1.2 C over pre-industrial temperatures and that's increasing at 1.6 C per decade (and rising)... in reality we'll hit 2 C around 2050 if we don't decrease emissions.
Note, the warming rate which ended the last (and various previous) glacial cycle was less than 0.1 C per century.
Extra credit....which hiatus in warming theory do you believe in?
The 'hiatus' was a shell game which con artists used to confuse people who didn't understand global warming. Basically, it worked by looking at a particular poorly estimated slice of the atmosphere over a carefully selected span of years and saying, 'look, there was less warming'... while ignoring that there was more warming in other slices of the atmosphere and (more importantly) in the oceans. Just a slightly more 'advanced' form of the, 'it snowed yesterday! therefore no global warming!' argument.
The total rate of heat accumulation in the global climate system never slowed down. It isn't even entirely clear that the rate in the denier's chosen sliver of the atmosphere ever slowed down, but ultimately that's irrelevant.
You know I am seeing a lot of people talking about this "settled" science. Could I get some links to sites that can explain it thoroughly in layman's terms?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know I am seeing a lot of people talking about this "settled" science. Could I get some links to sites that can explain it thoroughly in layman's terms?
You should ask those people what they mean by it. According to the 'search this thread' feature, the only ones who have used that phrase recently were you and KenderKin. From the context in those posts, I would guess that it means, 'science I want to ignore'.
CBDunkerson you bring up a good point on that graph.
IF that was the only graph we used...it would be interesting in postulating what occurred around the 1980s that started the temperature rise.
We knew prior to that about pollution and temperature change and by the 1970s actions were already occurring to curb many factors which affected carbon and other outputs (sulfur/nitrous...etc).
There are some thoughts that in the West pollution was actually FAR higher in the mid 19th century to the early 20th century.
In essence, many of the items that are factors in CC would be decreasing in the West as of the 1980s (not enough to change the flow of events, but decreasing).
One could hypothesize I suppose that it was the rise of industrial pollution in other areas of the World (for example, China, India, etc) that have added the new indexes.
Ironically, those are the precise areas of the World in many instances that have NO desire to stand by any agreements in regards to Climate conditions in the world.
Of course, this is not realistic in that we are basing it purely on that one graph, but if that graph was the truth and accuracy of it was the sole predictor of what was occurring...
I wonder what hypothesis one would have on WHY it rose in the 80s and afterwards...
And if it included the rise of the rest of the world in the industrialization of their nations...and more likely, with those that had no desire nor real impetus to keep any agreements on Climate Controls...
What one would or could do about it?
|
|
You know I am seeing a lot of people talking about this "settled" science. Could I get some links to sites that can explain it thoroughly in layman's terms?
Ten year old summary from New Scientist magazine. Not the most up to date, by any means, but should go through the basics for an educated layman level.
You know I am seeing a lot of people talking about this "settled" science. Could I get some links to sites that can explain it thoroughly in layman's terms?You should ask those people what they mean by it. According to the 'search this thread' feature, the only ones who have used that phrase recently were you and KenderKin. From the context in those posts, I would guess that it means, 'science I want to ignore'.
Wow... your disagreeable EVEN WHEN I want to know more about why man made global warming is so settled or if you prefer the only obvious truth?! Are you just trolling?
You know I am seeing a lot of people talking about this "settled" science. Could I get some links to sites that can explain it thoroughly in layman's terms?Ten year old summary from New Scientist magazine. Not the most up to date, by any means, but should go through the basics for an educated layman level.
Thanks... but I was hoping for a more detailed break down of the science on each point; not just a list of the points.
|
|
You know I am seeing a lot of people talking about this "settled" science. Could I get some links to sites that can explain it thoroughly in layman's terms?Ten year old summary from New Scientist magazine. Not the most up to date, by any means, but should go through the basics for an educated layman level.Thanks... but I was hoping for a more detailed break down of the science on each point; not just a list of the points.
In which case I'd suggest looking through New Scientist's more recent climate change articles as they're more likely to be more detailed on the individual points they're covering. Plus, you know, up to date rather than a decade old.
I'm curious, though. Do you have the same problem with quantum physics being true or not, given it has much less evidence than climate change? Evolution? Plate tectonics (remarkably controversial when first proposed)? I'm just not understanding how "I accept scientific findings. Except for that one which, even though it uses the same methods as every other part of science, I don't trust it." comes about. I'm not a climate science expert. But the people who are agree that this is happening, and happening for a given reason, with evidence to support it. What is there that suggests we shouldn't accept their findings that doesn't equally apply to every other area of science?
|
|
Wow... your disagreeable EVEN WHEN I want to know more about why man made global warming is so settled or if you prefer the only obvious truth?!
Ah. I thought you were asking about an explanation of the term settled science that you had 'quoted'. If you are looking for information on the science itself the best source would be the latest IPCC report, but a more "layman's terms" site might be Skeptical Science.
You know I am seeing a lot of people talking about this "settled" science. Could I get some links to sites that can explain it thoroughly in layman's terms?Ten year old summary from New Scientist magazine. Not the most up to date, by any means, but should go through the basics for an educated layman level.Thanks... but I was hoping for a more detailed break down of the science on each point; not just a list of the points.
In which case I'd suggest looking through New Scientist's more recent climate change articles as they're more likely to be more detailed on the individual points they're covering. Plus, you know, up to date rather than a decade old.
I'm curious, though. Do you have the same problem with quantum physics being true or not, given it has much less evidence than climate change? Evolution? Plate tectonics (remarkably controversial when first proposed)? I'm just not understanding how "I accept scientific findings. Except for that one which, even though it uses the same methods as every other part of science, I don't trust it." comes about. I'm not a climate science expert. But the people who are agree that this is happening, and happening for a given reason, with evidence to support it. What is there that suggests we shouldn't accept their findings that doesn't equally apply to every other area of science?
Quantum Physics? I used to think this was a made up field just based on the math... but unlike climate science, engineers have actually started making working devices based on quantum physics; like the entangled radar system. So this is obviously a real science. Even if it's a bit over my head.
Evolution is a bit of a hot button topic... but since you asked? I believe mankind was created by God. I may not understand the tools he used to make us, but then I doubt any of us really can. Does this mean evolution is false? Not necessarily. Some species have clearly gone through evolution. Has man? No one has proved it yet... BUT there is circumstantial evidence we have. So it may be that God used evolution as a tool when he created us.
Plate Tectonics? This is a troll response. We have OBVIOUSLY all read about earthquakes. Why do so called supporters of man made global warming ALWAYS have to insult people? You do realize this may be the single biggest reason the world is still skeptical of your claims.
Why don't I trust climate science? ... Well I guess if I look at my reasons closely it's probably because it was NEVER explained to me beyond:
"You must have FAITH in global warming and mankind's horrible sins in bringing it down upon us!"
Perhaps if they spent more time walking us through it (as tedious as that is) and less time being preachy or insulting more people would accept it. And yes there will always be people that do their own thing in the face of everything (like the fact that despite all of history there are still people who worship beings like Hades or Aphrodite). But ISN'T it worth a little tedious patience and explanation to save the planet?!
Wow... your disagreeable EVEN WHEN I want to know more about why man made global warming is so settled or if you prefer the only obvious truth?!Ah. I thought you were asking about an explanation of the term settled science that you had 'quoted'. If you are looking for information on the science itself the best source would be the latest IPCC report, but a more "layman's terms" site might be Skeptical Science.
Ahhh... thanks they appear to have a newcomers section. Hopefully this is exactly the sort of stuff I was looking for.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Aranna,
Plate tectonics was mentioned as it took more than fifty years from being proposed to being accepted. When first proposed it was ridiculed and dismissed. More evidence came in and the scientists had to take it seriously. I'm sure you can see the parallels with global warming here.
Science is never fully settled. Inconvenient facts can, and will, always overturn existing science. So far, no one has found the inconvenient fact that overturns anthropogenic climate change. There is not a massive debte amongst people who study it. .and even if they had, we'd probbly still use it until. better representtion comes along. I mean, qunantum mechanics and classical relativity are incompatible. They cannot both be right, but they keep getting confirmed within their own fields and no one has been able to improve on them. We literally know one of them is wrong, but it's still close enough for mot thing sto be used.
Now, what specifically, do you want to know? Climate change is pretty much an entire scientific discipline so its going to be tough to condense the entire thing into something a layperson can understnd easily and I'm not an expert or a communictions specialist.
As for being rude, you try trying to explain and being called a liar nd part of a conspiracy at every turn. You'd get a lot less patient with people using the same "innocnet questions" as the people who've been abusing you. I was not trying to be insulting, but as I said. If you accept other areas of science, what is it about this that's the problem? Carbon dioxide is a known greenhouse gas. carbon dioxide accumulates in the atmosphere. carbon dioxide has been accumulating in the atmosphere, primarily through human activity (a combination of cutting down trees tht bsorb it, farming animals thatproduce it, and digging up sources from under the ground and burning them, thus pumping the whole lot into the atmosphere faster thn the natural systems can remove it.). the global average atmospheric temperature is increasing at a rate we have not seen in the geological record over the past hundred years. which of these is the most problematic part for you to understand/accept?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why don't I trust climate science? ... Well I guess if I look at my reasons closely it's probably because it was NEVER explained to me beyond:
"You must have FAITH in global warming and mankind's horrible sins in bringing it down upon us!"
Well, let me see if I can provide an explanation, and you can tell me what you don't understand about it.
* One of the ways that energy (and specifically) heat moves is through radiation, which is objects in direct sunlight get warm, and why you can use a suitably shaped mirror as a solar water boiler. The sun radiates energy through the vacuum of space which is absorbed by the objects, and this energy expresses itself as heat.
* The earth itself is also warm, and so radiates heat out into space, but since the earth isn't as hot as the sun, it radiates along a different frequency spectrum, mostly in the infrared range. This so-called "black body" radiation is the reason that white-hot iron is hotter than red-hot iron, which in turn is hotter than merely "hot" iron. More accurately, the iron is white-hot because it's so hot that it radiates white light instead of red or infrared.
* Gases in the atmosphere absorb radiation, with different gases preferentially absorbing different frequencies. The earth's atmosphere is largely transparent to visible light (which is why you can see stars at light), but absorbs a large fraction of infrared light. This means in effect that the atmosphere acts as a heat-trapping blanket around the earth; the sun's visible rays go all the way down to the ground, but the earth re-radiates in the infrared which is absorbed by the atmosphere, and the heat is then convected back to the surface.
* One of the minor components in the atmosphere is carbon dioxide (CO2).
* CO2 is much less transparent to infrared radiation than nitrogen or oxygen, so it absorbs much more "heat" than the rest of the atmosphere.
----
Basically, everything up to this point was well-known and well-understood by the mid-Victorians. In fact, the mid-Victorians also knew about the ice age, and they wondered whether or not CO2 was a major reason that the climate had changed so radically since the ice age (since France was no longer covered under glaciers).
So at this point, the hypothesis was proposed:
* Does an increase in atmospheric CO2 cause an increase in the amount of heat trapped in the system?
John Tyndall was able to establish the truth of this hypothesis in the laboratory in 1859, and it was more or less established (Arrhenius, 1896) that cutting the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by half could lower the temperature in Europe some 4-5 degrees Celsius, to an ice age level.
By extension, doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would raise the temperature by about 5-6 degrees.
-----
Okay, so this is nice in theory and it works in the lab. But is it really possible for this kind of change to happen at a global scale?
This is where studies like ice core samples come in. The ice layers in glaciers an be dated accurately and contain trapped air from when the snow comprising the layers fell. By looking at the core samples, we can measure the CO2 levels then and now, and do in fact find that a) CO2 levels can vary substantially, and b) there is a definite trend of increasing CO2 levels from the late 1800s on.
All right, so we have a correlation. Since 1850, we've seen greater industrialization and greater CO2 levels. Can we show a cause-effect relationship? As it happens, we can. The fuel sources burned by industrial economies (e.g., coal, oil, natural gas) contain almost none of the specific isotope carbon-14 (C14), because C14 is not stable over the millions of years it takes to lay down a coal bed. We see a decrease in the amount of C14, over and above what would be expected from natural decay, showing that there is a substantial increase specifically in "fossil" CO2, CO2 that comes from fossil fuels and not from the normal carbon cycle. This is a strong indication that at least some of the additional carbon comes from human activities.
At the same time, we also have a correlation between temperature measurements and CO2 levels, one that goes back millennia. (For example, we can look at glaciation patterns to get an idea of temperature, and compare that with the core samples.) Of course, there's also some more direct evidence -- for example, the decrease in glaciers world-wide, the loss of permafrost all around the Arctic, and the decrease in Arctic sea ice, all point to a warmer planet. These glaciers that have been growing steadily -- as in, we have yearly records of growth -- for thousands of years have suddenly started melting away. What changed?
----
All right, so what do we have?
* We have a well-established greenhouse effect, driven by CO2
* We have clear evidence for a warming world.
* We have clear evidence of a causal link between the two
* We have clear evidence that part of the increase in CO2 is driven by human activity
What was missing is a detailed predictive model , which is where the recent research in climate modeling came from. It's not enough to simply say "hey, CO2 levels are rising, that might be a bad thing." We need to know something sensible about the relationship between things that we can control, like burning oil, and the effects (like temperatures, or sea level, or rainfall). And climate modeling is, as I said, a hellishly complicated mess. For example, how much of the emitted CO2 goes into the air and how much into the oceans? How much oceanic CO2 goes back into the air later, and over what time scale? How does the atmospheric CO2 level interact with atmospheric water vapor? Et cetera.
In 1950, we didn't have very good answers to these questions. Today, we have a lot better answers, which you can read about in the latest IPCC report in detail (complete with references to the scientific literature if you want to dig that deeply). But just to explain what's going on,.... notice that nowhere did I say "mankind's horrible sins" OR "faith." It's just observational science along with well-understood theory.
Aranna,
Plate tectonics was mentioned as it took more than fifty years from being proposed to being accepted. When first proposed it was ridiculed and dismissed. More evidence came in and the scientists had to take it seriously. I'm sure you can see the parallels with global warming here.
Just to expand upon this, there were several major objections to plate tectonics (and they're well-documented in the literature, so Aranna can ferret them out if she likes).
The first is simple incredulity that something as big as a continent can move. This is directly analogous to the "humans are too insignificant" argument.
The second is that the models weren't perfect -- continents that were not supposed to have been in contact could be matched almost as well as continents that were. It was easily possible to cherry-pick some arrangement of the jigsaw puzzle pieces in a way that made no sense, which again is directly analogous to the cherry-picked arguments like "the world has actually gotten cooler if you look at THIS specific period" made above.
The third is that there was no real mechanism for continental drift known. This is not a problem with climate change as the mechanism is well-understood; in this regard, climate change is actually in better shape than plate tectonics was.
Science is never fully settled. Inconvenient facts can, and will, always overturn existing science. So far, no one has found the inconvenient fact that overturns anthropogenic climate change.
Yup. All of the anti-climate change arguments are basically arguments from incredulity. "Your evidence doesn't meet my arbitrary standards for perfection, therefore I disbelieve." But there's nothing out there that actually argues against climate change except politics.
Aranna,
Science is never fully settled. Inconvenient facts can, and will, always overturn existing science. So far, no one has found the inconvenient fact that overturns anthropogenic climate change. There is not a massive debte amongst people who study it. .and even if they had, we'd probbly still use it until. better representtion comes along. I mean, qunantum mechanics and classical relativity are incompatible. They cannot both be right, but they keep getting confirmed within their own fields and no one has been able to improve on them. We literally know one of them is wrong, but it's still close enough for mot thing sto be used.
Edited this emotional response (rather than scientific) because it FAR too long for what it was (and probably still is too long for what it is).
What do you term as massive debates?
I'm somewhat a volunteer in the field and I see a LOT of massive debates and disagreements.
Did you know it was accepted less than 100 years ago that the speed barrier was unbreakable? In the public, many said there was NOTHING that showed any evidence of it being able to be broken. Yet, there were scientists that did NOT agree with that assessment. Years later, that barrier was broken when we had objects bypass the speed of sound.
Why do I mention this?
Because I see a LOT of religion guised as science.
I'm not a scientist...I'm a volunteer that helps when I can...
Ironically, it isn't always the skeptics I have difficulties with. They seem to tell someone all the reasons they don't believe it, but at least they don't say the scientists are idiots many times(in fact, quite the contrary, some seem to think they are so genius as to manipulate all the world governments like some super villain).
It's the true believers...those who think that every scientist agrees and that everything is beautiful and hunky dory in CC land.
However, it's the disagreements that drive the science at times. There are multiple theories on what is happening and why, with some more prevalent a decade ago and others more prevalent today.
But the worst are those who are AGW true believers and take it to the next level (for example, the idiots that went out and wrecked the monitoring station on one of the mountains that cost a pretty penny to repair, all because it somehow was "violating" nature by being there).
Maybe that's why I have a rather bad attitude towards those who make crazy claims like "everyone agrees" and stuff.
When going for grants, it's BOTH skeptics and faith bound true believers that can be problematic, at least the politics of it (okay, there, I admitted there WAS some politics in CC...even though I despise it). Those who think everyone is on the same page might not actually take a request seriously...because...
"if everyone agrees and it's not in the particular theory that this person agrees with" that AGW faith bound true believer is going to deny anything else.
In the opposite end of the spectrum, you have the skeptic that won't fund anything they don't feel furthers their point of view.
BOTH sides are equally as bad in my experience. And unfortunately, I tend to get set off by them occasionally (as I'm seeing I probably just did when writing this post). This is also why I get to be out in the field with volunteer work where I do simple stuff (recording really, and not much else), because I'm probably too much of a hot head to handle anything with the conflicting tensions that occasionally come up.
(for example, my spouse talks about some of the balancing tightrope walk they do to not anger anyone and yet continue...and I probably would blow up at people if I had to do that).
You do see a LOT of differing opinions. So, sure, they might agree on CC...but agreeing on what is happening or how we got from here to there...a LOT of disagreements or conflicting theories still. For all we know, a decade from now it might be one of the theories dealing with nitrogen and Hydrogen that take the world by storm...or maybe CO2 will have a different slant to it, or any number of things.
The science is FAR from everyone agreeing, "which is another way of saying it's settled" by the way, which is part of the problems actually facing the researchers today on both fronts, from skeptics and true believers.
Give me someone who is grounded in reality rather than someone who thinks we all agree on everything...and it will further the science FAR more than any AGW true believer who thinks everyone is in agreement with whatever theory they favor...OR the skeptic who thinks I'm part of some huge conspiracy to rule the world.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Did you know it was accepted less than 100 years ago that the speed barrier was unbreakable?
No, I didn't know that, largely because it wasn't true, in the same sense that no educated person actually believed the world to be flat at the time of Colombus' voyage.
Bullets, in particular were known to be faster than the speed of sound. Goodness, musket balls were known to be faster (sometimes) than the speed of sound, and of course rifled ammunition was typically faster yet. Benjamin Robins wrote about supersonic ammunition in 1752 (New Principles in Gunnery), and the fact that the shells arrived before the report would have been obvious to anyone on the receiving ends of Mr. Robins' guns.
The X-1, the first plane to actually fly faster than the speed of sound, was deliberately shaped like a bullet precisely because bullets were capable of smooth supersonic flight.
(I also note that the fact that the crack of a whip was a sonic boom was known by about 1900; people had been talking about supersonic things using that word since 1840, and had even been using the phrase "sonic boom" since 1890. So the sonic boom was well understood as the result of something breaking the sound barrier well before powered flight was even a reality.)
Why do I mention this?
Because you're misinformed and see controversies where there are none.
Did you know it was accepted less than 100 years ago that the speed barrier was unbreakable?No, I didn't know that, largely because it wasn't true, in the same sense that no educated person actually believed the world to be flat at the time of Colombus' voyage.
Bullets, in particular were known to be faster than the speed of sound. Goodness, musket balls were known to be faster than the speed of sound, and of course rifled ammunition was typically faster yet. Benjamin Robins wrote about supersonic ammunitition in 1752 (New Principles in Gunnery), and the fact that the shells arrived before the report would have been obvious to anyone on the receiving ends of Mr. Robins' guns.
The X-1, the first plane to actually fly faster than the speed of sound, was deliberately shaped like a bullet precisely because bullets were capable of smooth supersonic flight.
Why do I mention this?[/QUTOE]Because you're misinformed and see controversies where there are none.
I should be more clear...bullets don't fly...
And the reference to breaking the speed barrier I thought was NORMALLY WELL understood by ANYONE who did science.
I was obviously mistaken. Breaking the sound barrier is usually discussed in regards to manned flight. This is where the term was actually created and how it was defined when it was created.
100 years ago was 1916. What they had back then was very different then what you see today...and ongoing even up to the 1930s and 40s you have difficulties in getting over the prop element of manned flight going over the speed barrier.
Some hypothesized some dead pilots went over it in the 40s...but others state that the dynamics of a prop aircraft would make it impossible after Mach .8 to Mach .9 or thereabouts.
The large increase in drag is caused by the formation of a shock wave on the upper surface of the airfoil, which can induce flow separation and adverse pressure gradients on the aft portion of the wing. This effect requires that aircraft intended to fly at supersonic speeds have a large amount of thrust. In early development of transonic and supersonic aircraft, a steep dive was often used to provide extra acceleration through the high drag region around Mach 1.0. This steep increase in drag gave rise to the popular false notion of an unbreakable sound barrier, because it seemed that no aircraft technology in the foreseeable future would have enough propulsive force or control authority to overcome it. Indeed, one of the popular analytical methods for calculating drag at high speeds, the Prandtl-Glauert rule, predicts an infinite amount of drag at Mach 1.0.
OR if that isn't clear enough
In 1935, a simplified explanation of the challenges of supersonic flight led to the creation of the term "sound barrier," which seemed to imply a physical wall that could not be overcome. Bullets and cannon balls had exceeded the speed of sound for hundreds of years, but the question loomed as to whether or not a plane—or a man—could withstand the pressures that accompanied it. The U.S. Air Force set out to answer this looming question
Obviously we had things that went supersonic prior to breaking the sound barrier (V-2 rockets for example, we even had aircraft that may have broken the sound barrier, but they broke apart on their way there, V-2 Rockets were seen as ballistic rather than flight).
However the idea of a sound barrier was NOT dealing with things actually going faster than sound, but flight going past the speed of sound.
Popular theory had it that aircraft couldn't be designed to go faster than the speed of sound due to various laws/theories they applied to indicate the airframe would disintegrate. 100 Years ago, Jets did not exist...if you know the math...do the math for a prop going over the speed of sound.
I'm not certain most have solved that problem today even. The problem is that things literally disintegrated in regards to aircraft design back then, and most of the PUBLIC perception was that it could not be broken. In fact, though many kept trying to break it, even in some scientific circles, it was accepted that it could not be broken.
Then the jet was invented...and an entire new arena opened up.
More on this subject and more indepth than I'm going
who went over the speed of sound first
as a side note, I should have said deniers instead of skeptics in the post you responded to.
In addition, considering you didn't know the source of the sound barrier or how it was used...your thoughts of "misinformed" is sort of ironic.
It is a common enough thing to know (HS physics I'd imagine) regarding the usage of that term...I really didn't think there would be ANYONE who wouldn't know what I was talking about. (I used to fly as a private pilot a lot, and even without HS physics, this was basic stuff we learned in ground school...and even though I didn't go supersonic in a prop Cesna...he was still considered a rather historic figure). When they created the idea of a sound barrier, those who created it obviously knew about bullets and other items. The math dealt with flight...and this is what the sound barrier represented a barrier against going past.
Curiosity: How did you know who Chuck Yeager (or, on re-reading, maybe you didn't...I should say, the X-1) was if you didn't know the context of how sound barrier was commonly used in regards to him breaking it? Or why it was even considered one of the historic moments of flight?
I should be more clear...bullets don't fly...And the reference to breaking the speed barrier I thought was NORMALLY WELL understood by ANYONE who did science.
I was obviously mistaken. Breaking the sound barrier is usually discussed in regards to manned flight. This is where the term was actually created and how it was defined when it was created.
And I stand by my statement -- you are seeing controversies where there are none.
The phrase "sound barrier" is actually attested as early as 1828, more or less when acoustics was beginning to be taken seriously as a subfield of physics. The "sound barrier" was known to be breakable, as I said, as early as the 18th century.
What you're discussing is not a physics question but an engineering question -- "can a manned, propeller-driven aircraft travel faster than the speed of sound?" -- and to be honest I don't actually know the answer to that because the engineers very cleverly bypassed that question (the X-1 was rocket-powered, the contemporary Miles M.52 was a turbojet), which they did because the ability to bypass the sound barrier itself was noncontroversial. (One of the major actual controversies was whether the wings of an aircraft could take the stress of transsonic flight. Some models said "yes," some said "no.")
Similarly, if you look at the big climate change questions. there is no controversy. Is the global temperature rising? Of course it is. Are human industrial emissions responsible for a large part of that rise? Yes, definitely. The percentage of working climate scientists who would disagree with either of those assessments is comparable to the number of geocentric astrophysicists or creationist microbiologists.
That's not to say that climate science -- or microbiology, or astrophysics -- is without controversy, but the controversies are about minor technical details or about interpretation of otherwise uncontroversial results. Scientists can and do argue about the differences between the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps and the causes for the different behavior, but almost no one is claiming that there has not been a loss of Arctic ice, or that the loss of Arctic ice is caused by anything other than global warming. (Indeed, I don't even know what a counter-hypothesis could be. Underwear gnomes making billions of ice cubes?)
I should be more clear...bullets don't fly...And the reference to breaking the speed barrier I thought was NORMALLY WELL understood by ANYONE who did science.
I was obviously mistaken. Breaking the sound barrier is usually discussed in regards to manned flight. This is where the term was actually created and how it was defined when it was created.
And I stand by my statement -- you are seeing controversies where there are none.
The phrase "sound barrier" is actually attested as early as 1828, more or less when acoustics was beginning to be taken seriously as a subfield of physics. The "sound barrier" was known to be breakable, as I said, as early as the 18th century.
What you're discussing is not a physics question but an engineering question -- "can a manned, propeller-driven aircraft travel faster than the speed of sound?" -- and to be honest I don't actually know the answer to that because the engineers very cleverly bypassed that question (the X-1 was rocket-powered, the contemporary Miles M.52 was a turbojet), which they did because the ability to bypass the sound barrier itself was noncontroversial. (One of the major actual controversies was whether the wings of an aircraft could take the stress of transsonic flight. Some models said "yes," some said "no.")
Similarly, if you look at the big climate change questions. there is no controversy. Is the global temperature rising? Of course it is. Are human industrial emissions responsible for a large part of that rise? Yes, definitely. The percentage of working climate scientists who would disagree with either of those assessments is comparable to the number of geocentric astrophysicists or creationist microbiologists.
That's not to say that climate science -- or microbiology, or astrophysics -- is without controversy, but the controversies are about minor technical details or about interpretation of otherwise uncontroversial results. Scientists can and do argue...
We're going to have to disagree on the usage of sound barrier.
If this is REALLY how you use it...it's not even worth discussing.
Here, read this
Basic primer on what the sound barrier means and how it came about
I've provided MULTIPLE sources for my documentation. I've even provided a primary source (the actual math was provided in one of my links).
Can you provide a primary source for your 1828 statement? Specifically "sound barrier" the term (not going faster than the speed of sound, we are talking the term "sound barrier)...
I might not be a scientist, but I can understand why talking with them is perhaps sometimes preferable than discussing science with others.
I've NEVER met a single scientist who would NOT know what I was referring to or even BACK YOU up on your thoughts on what the terminology or ideas of a sound barrier was (though admittedly, albeit most of my association with scientist have been either with Environmental studies, Climate Studies, Engineering, or sciences associated with those fields rather than straight up physics).
Secondly, isn't it ironic that you would disagree with someone in the field and those who might work in CC itself?
What type of person says...I believe in CC, but not anything from those who do the research or work in the field developing current CC theory and ideas? I believe in CC, but only if it agrees with my particular view and not any other scientist, researcher, or anyone else in the CC field?
Is that any better than a CC denier?
Or is this simply an indication that the CC field may be more fractured than you imply?
Can you provide a primary source for your 1828 statement? Specifically "sound barrier" the term (not going faster than the speed of sound, we are talking the term "sound barrier).
Google Books Ngram database. So, no, that's not a primary source, but a well-regarded secondary source.
And from your own source:
The sound barrier or sonic barrier is a popular term for the sudden increase in aerodynamic drag and other effects experienced by an aircraft or other object when it approaches supersonic speed.
Which ties in very neatly to what I said was an actual controversy -- would the wings of an aircraft stand up to the drag? It was well known that bullets and rockets could exceed the speed of sound, but of course those were primarily or wholly ballistic and didn't need to be steered.
Can you provide a primary source for your 1828 statement? Specifically "sound barrier" the term (not going faster than the speed of sound, we are talking the term "sound barrier).Google Books Ngram database. So, no, that's not a primary source, but a well-regarded secondary source.
And from your own source:
The sound barrier or sonic barrier is a popular term for the sudden increase in aerodynamic drag and other effects experienced by an aircraft or other object when it approaches supersonic speed.
Which ties in very neatly to what I said was an actual controversy -- would the wings of an aircraft stand up to the drag? It was well known that bullets and rockets could exceed the speed of sound, but of course those were primarily or wholly ballistic and didn't need to be steered.
I'm not going to look up a term that could result in who knows how many hits on a database just because you can't be bothered to actually realize the history nor definition of a BASIC term.
As I said, there is a mathematical principle behind the Sound Barrier and the terminology came up in the 20th century (when they were fully aware of your bullets and other items you continuously bring up) in regards to flight. Not that you could be bothered to actually read what I linked, or find out the background behind the Sound Barrier or what it was...
You know what...this is why I continually bugger out of this thread.
The definition of the sound barrier and how it came to be is BASIC stuff.
If one can't get the basic comprehension of it, it's very hard to accept ANY thing they say on other scientific ideas...
More specifically, to read inaccurate statements and ideas in the very field I volunteer with and work with others in.
THIS is the type of stuff where I can point out, true believers...are JUST as problematic as deniers.
In fact, at times, those who use it more like a faith based religion than science are worse to the researchers and scientist in trying to explain something than deniers or anyone else, because it's NOT about science, but about their belief...and faith and belief are impossible things to prove or disprove.
This is also why I think we HAVE deniers in some instances...because those full of faith can't tell the difference between faith and science and can't understand the questions other might be presenting!
Anyways, if you want to disagree about what the Sound Barrier is and think that Chuck Yeager didn't accomplish anything unusual or great or advancing in science...
Be my guest.
Just like you want to agree everything that people who aren't in the CC field claim and say that's what EVERYONE agrees upon...
Feel free to.
It's hard to discuss science when someone wants to talk about their faith in something instead.
I'll go gripe to the actual scientist (actually, I already did to be honest...their advice...why am I even discussing this stuff on a forum with these people...perhaps that's the best advice).
I should take their advice though and simply bug out of the discussion. I always have the hope for scientific discussion and enlightenment...I suppose that's why I keep coming back...because it CAN BE an interesting topic. I always get frustrated though when it comes down to faith rather than what is actually happening in regards to the discussions and research in the field.
Probably because I get unhappy too much and jump on those conversations too much myself...as well as they are waaay to prevalent in these threads.
I actually can enjoy discussing stuff with skeptics and even deniers. Honestly...it's not those types that chase me (and believe it or not, why some CC scientists seem to avoid these types of things on the internet and advise me to do the same) away...it's others.
I will add one final thing...that I'd love to discuss sometime. Not now obviously, especially if I leave the thread for a bit...
But I AM financially connected to something that COULD BE big on the energy side of the equation. It might fizzle and die too (enough of them do, the biggest factor in this is it appears to have the cleanest energy I've seen...but it is also VERY EXPENSIVE...for installation on something that last a while it is around 35K-50K per Kilowatt, but once installed it's all free energy). If enough adapt it probably could get a LOT cheaper...but in the US...chances are against us.
I'm also connected to some things dealing with environmental changes and predictions in regards to energy usage and it's affects on the environments in the next twenty years or so (so more short term) which would be fascinating to discuss with others (At least the parts which I am allowed to discuss) which directly involve the usage of fuels and other emitters which affect the environment and CC.
But...maybe another time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your argument doesn't seem terribly scientific, but rather pedantic.
Plus, you're not arguing about the science, but people's opinions on science. You've linked stuff about the sound barrier, but your primary argument, that scientists debated about the sound barrier, you haven't actually linked information about that I've seen. Wikipedia doesn't much about the debate at the time.
If your fundamental point is that scientists argue about stuff, I'm pretty sure we'll agree.
That said, most of the science involved in climate science IS pretty well accepted. Some of the conclusions aren't, but the underlying science is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Plate Tectonics? This is a troll response. We have OBVIOUSLY all read about earthquakes. Why do so called supporters of man made global warming ALWAYS have to insult people? You do realize this may be the single biggest reason the world is still skeptical of your claims.
Why don't I trust climate science? ... Well I guess if I look at my reasons closely it's probably because it was NEVER explained to me beyond:
"You must have FAITH in global warming and mankind's horrible sins in bringing it down upon us!"
Perhaps if they spent more time walking us through it (as tedious as that is) and less time being preachy or insulting more people would accept it. And yes there will always be people that do their own thing in the face of everything (like the fact that despite all of history there are still people who worship beings like Hades or Aphrodite). But ISN'T it worth a little tedious patience and explanation to save the planet?!
If this level of discourse is to be taken as insulting, I'm not sure how we are to actually make points or challenge opinions.