17 Mar 18
Originally posted by @metal-brainThey show their work.
There is no evidence that estimate is accurate or even close
18 Mar 18
Originally posted by @wildgrassThat doesn't mean anything. You can analyze warming in a lab all you want. It is very different than warming in an atmosphere.
They show their work.
It needs to be tested. If a climate model prediction over-estimates using that input estimate then the number needs to be reduced and tested all over again. This must take place multiple times until the predictions match the estimate.
That is how science is supposed to work. You are relying on faith. True scientists don't rely on mere faith.
Originally posted by @metal-brainThen write up your findings and show how a hundred years of atmosphere sciences are wrong, maybe you will shake up the entire climate community. You can't just continue spewing opinions. YOUR hypothesis needs testing as well.
That doesn't mean anything. You can analyze warming in a lab all you want. It is very different than warming in an atmosphere.
It needs to be tested. If a climate model prediction over-estimates using that input estimate then the number needs to be reduced and tested all over again. This must take place multiple times until the predictions match the ...[text shortened]... science is supposed to work. You are relying on faith. True scientists don't rely on mere faith.
Originally posted by @sonhousewhat would actually happen is that the whole science community would groan in despair from his worthless unintelligent ignorant unconvincing rhetorics.
Then write up your findings and show how a hundred years of atmosphere sciences are wrong, maybe you will shake up the entire climate community.
Don't give him ideas.
Hopefully, no publisher with the slightest self respect would be either so stupid or so soulless to actually publish it.
19 Mar 18
Originally posted by @sonhousePout all you want.
Then write up your findings and show how a hundred years of atmosphere sciences are wrong, maybe you will shake up the entire climate community. You can't just continue spewing opinions. YOUR hypothesis needs testing as well.
The estimate is a hypothesis. That is my whole point. It is limited science needing further investigation. You and humy getting angry will not change that.
19 Mar 18
Originally posted by @metal-brainSo write up your recommendations and send it to the journals so they know that, obviously you figure they are so stupid they lost the ability to think. You MUST know more than all the atmosphere scientists so they will clearly want your input.
Pout all you want.
The estimate is a hypothesis. That is my whole point. It is limited science needing further investigation. You and humy getting angry will not change that.
19 Mar 18
Originally posted by @metal-brainYou're smart and well-read. I'm curious though... what do you think science is and science does? Why do labs and models exist? Is science capable of answering the questions regarding the atmosphere and climate to the level of accuracy that you require?
You can analyze warming in a lab all you want. It is very different than warming in an atmosphere.
If not, then why are we even discussing this?
21 Mar 18
Originally posted by @sonhouseThey already know that. It takes years to test a prediction. Besides, they are probably more concerned with receiving funding than admitting they are just taking a shot in the dark.
So write up your recommendations and send it to the journals so they know that, obviously you figure they are so stupid they lost the ability to think. You MUST know more than all the atmosphere scientists so they will clearly want your input.
I don't know why you want to fool yourself into thinking their estimate is correct. They don't even say that it is. Maybe you just want to believe it.
As I said before, their estimate is a hypothesis. I simply observed that fact and pointed it out. Then you falsely claimed I had the hypothesis when all I had was a mere observation. Now you are implying they know the estimate is a fact when they never claimed it was.
You are assuming things you should not.
21 Mar 18
Originally posted by @wildgrassScience tests a hypothesis before they accept it as fact. Models are how you test it. The planet's atmosphere cannot fit in a lab and replace it. That is not a confirmation that the estimate is right. Just like testing a drug on a mouse or ape and getting a favorable result does not mean it will work with a person. Drug companies know that just like climate scientists do with the atmosphere.
You're smart and well-read. I'm curious though... what do you think science is and science does? Why do labs and models exist? Is science capable of answering the questions regarding the atmosphere and climate to the level of accuracy that you require?
If not, then why are we even discussing this?
What science is capable of answering is not known in this case. I can't predict the future anymore than you can. Do all climate modellers input the same numbers? If not they will disagree. All we can do is wait for one to do better than the others.
Do you know what level of accuracy is acceptable to you? Can you give me a number? If not, why are you asking a question you will not answer yourself?
21 Mar 18
Originally posted by @metal-brainI would be happy with plus or minus 10%. What about you? Would you deign to answer that?
Science tests a hypothesis before they accept it as fact. Models are how you test it. The planet's atmosphere cannot fit in a lab and replace it. That is not a confirmation that the estimate is right. Just like testing a drug on a mouse or ape and getting a favorable result does not mean it will work with a person. Drug companies know that just like cl ...[text shortened]... u? Can you give me a number? If not, why are you asking a question you will not answer yourself?
21 Mar 18
2 edits
Originally posted by @metal-brainScientific theories are always somewhere in between true and false, but empirical evidence makes some theories much much more credible than others.
Science tests a hypothesis before they accept it as fact. Models are how you test it. The planet's atmosphere cannot fit in a lab and replace it. That is not a confirmation that the estimate is right. Just like testing a drug on a mouse or ape and getting a favorable result does not mean it will work with a person. Drug companies know that just like climate scientists do with the atmosphere
Take your drug testing analogy one step further: Does a negative result in a mouse mean it won't work in people? After a positive test in animals, does a positive result from a clinical trial in people prove that it works the same on all people? Of course not. Does a negative result prove that it doesn't work on anyone for any ailment? Of course not. The same is true for other scientific model systems (including climate models). That models don't predict everything does not discredit them. Drug companies (and doctors) know how to synthesize the available information to make predictions on what drug is most likely to work for a given patient population. Does any pharmaceutical science regarding the efficacy of drugs ever become accepted as a fact?
Now say you have a patient who has cancer. And you know a drug (with significant and long lasting and painful side effects) is 80% effective at extending a 5-year survival rate in that cancer type. Do you say: let's try the drug and see what happens? or do you say: It's not 100% fact that it'll work so why bother?
One thing is clear: Using the meaningless "just a hypothesis" or "just a theory" argument proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you don't understand what science does. No science is fact, and saying it can be distorts reality and exploits scientific uncertainty for an agenda-driven argument. You need to digest and synthesize all available information before making predictions about what historically-high CO2 levels will do to our climate.
p.s. I agree with sonhouse. 10% seems like a reasonable statistical range.
21 Mar 18
5 edits
If man made global warming is just a myth because it is "just a theory" (and I HAVE seen on some forums some people strongly imply such nonsense!) then, by the same moronic 'logic', there being no man made global warming is just a myth because that is "just a theory" and the Earth being round and not flat is just a myth because that is "just a theory".
Obviously, perfectly valid and good science deals with 'theories' as opposed to absolute facts such as mathematical ones that have maths proofs and calling a theory "just a theory" just because you don't like it proves nothing and isn't even an 'argument'.
23 Mar 18
Originally posted by @wildgrass"Does a negative result prove that it doesn't work on anyone for any ailment? Of course not."
Scientific theories are always somewhere in between true and false, but empirical evidence makes some theories much much more credible than others.
Take your drug testing analogy one step further: Does a negative result in a mouse mean it won't work in people? After a positive test in animals, does a positive result from a clinical trial in people prov ...[text shortened]... do to our climate.
p.s. I agree with sonhouse. 10% seems like a reasonable statistical range.
Are you willing to bet a billion dollars on the result and put a lot of people in poverty if you bet wrong? The expense and economic disruption of a carbon tax or other taxing solutions to AGW when AGW might very well be negligible is insane and faith based. There is too much at stake to base such a disruptive policy on an unconfirmed hypothesis.
Your cancer analogy is stupid. AGW is not going to destroy the planet or kill off mankind. Utterly absurd!
10% of what for how long?
This is why I think asking for me to pull a number out of my butt is stupid. How many years within 10%? What kind of prediction? Sea level rise? Satellite temp data? Ground temp data? I could go on and on.
Some theories are more credible than others. AGW theory happens to be very lacking in credibility.
23 Mar 18
Originally posted by @humyAGW is not a myth. The claim that it is significant is a myth.
If man made global warming is just a myth because it is "just a theory" (and I HAVE seen on some forums some people strongly imply such nonsense!) then, by the same moronic 'logic', there being no man made global warming is just a myth because that is "just a theory" and the Earth being round and not flat is just a myth because that is "just a theory".
Obviou ...[text shortened]... eory "just a theory" just because you don't like it proves nothing and isn't even an 'argument'.
23 Mar 18
1 edit
Originally posted by @metal-brainYour analogy man. Pharmaceutical companies routinely spend billions of dollars on drug development for "unconfirmed hypotheses" even though they (obviously) don't know if they will work. Some of these drugs only extend lifespan by a few weeks over a 5-year survival study, but that is worth it for drug companies and patients.
Are you willing to bet a billion dollars on the result and put a lot of people in poverty if you bet wrong? The expense and economic disruption of a carbon tax or other taxing solutions to AGW when AGW might very well be negligible is insane and faith based. There is too much at stake to base such a disruptive policy on an unconfirmed hypothesis.
We're not talking about killing off mankind. We're looking for solutions to extend the lifespan of our current climate.