'Global warming

[kf6rdn]

Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ Mar. 21 2007,17:13)]Quote[/b] ]
Actually it's not a myth,it's a fact.



Here we go, Paul N0JAA

How do you reply to that?

No its not
Yes it is
No its not
yes it is
No its not....and on and on.

This is why a reasonable debate can't take place on Ragchew. There's just no debating such blunt, unbendable, and quite sily replies. Of course, Global Warming is a FACT as is Global Cooling. However, anthropogenic GW is NOT a fact. It is a HYPOTHESIS that is becoming widely accepted. Just like "evolution" is NOT a fact, it is a theory. Theories only become facts when they are proven. Until they are proven, they remain hypothesis...and until we have another decade or so of temperature increases, we can only regard this as a theory. Facts are things provable. Global climate forcasting is NOT a provable science. It is a theoretical science.

But Paul, I'll let you pick up the debate on this topic. When your wheels start spinning, feel free to give up.

(You may as well be debating a computer)
<Ahem>

No it isnt!




M: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?
A: I told you once.
M: No you haven't.
A: Yes I have.
M: When?
A: Just now.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't
A: I did!
M: You didn't!
A: I'm telling you I did!
M: You did not!!
A: Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
M: Oh, just the five minutes.
A: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.
M: You most certainly did not.
A: Look, let's get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.
M: No you did not.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't.
A: Did.
M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.
A: Yes it is.
M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
A: No it isn't.
M: It is!
A: It is not.
M: Look, you just contradicted me.
A: I did not.
M: Oh you did!!
A: No, no, no.
M: You did just then.
A: Nonsense!
M: Oh, this is futile!
A: No it isn't.
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!

A: Yes it is!
M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
A: No it isn't.
M: It is.
A: Not at all.
M: Now look.
A: (Rings bell) Good Morning.
M: What?
A: That's it. Good morning.
M: I was just getting interested.
A: Sorry, the five minutes is up.
M: That was never five minutes!
A: I'm afraid it was.
M: It wasn't.
Pause
A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue anymore.
M: What?!
A: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.
M: Yes, but that was never five minutes, just now. Oh come on!
A: (Hums)
M: Look, this is ridiculous.
A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!
M: Oh, all right.
(pays money)
A: Thank you.
short pause
M: Well?
A: Well what?
M: That wasn't really five minutes, just now.
A: I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid.
M: I just paid!
A: No you didn't.
M: I DID!
A: No you didn't.
M: Look, I don't want to argue about that.
A: Well, you didn't pay.
M: Aha. If I didn't pay, why are you arguing? I Got you!
A: No you haven't.
M: Yes I have. If you're arguing, I must have paid.
A: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.
M: Oh I've had enough of this.
A: No you haven't.
M: Oh Shut up.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ Mar. 21 2007,09:45)]Googling Marty Fouts, Martin Fouts, Marty J Fouts, and Martin J Fouts only offers ONE non-internet published article with your name associated.
Gee, Heath, my google attempt shows a different one as the first item on the first page of google returns.

Like I said, you're not very good at google.

And you have no idea how hilarious it is that you'd pick Skippy as a source of ad hominem quotes.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (n0jaa @ Mar. 21 2007,08:16)]"Global warming" is a myth.

Actually, it's a well documented fact. The climate is, indeed, getting warmer. It is now nearly impossible to find a climate researcher who claims otherwise. Even most of those who disagree that the causes are human originated admit that the warming is occurring.

Quote[/b] ]There are literally hundreds of factors that affect and effect global climate change, of which 99% are natural.

That has never been in doubt. It's taken into account in the global warming research. Every one of the examples you gave are well known and accounted for.

The problem is that none of them are currently changing in a way that explains the temperature increase.

Quote[/b] ]
Man-made pollution may factor into this, but how much is currently impossible to ascertain, as it is extremely difficult to determine how much pollution is man-made and how much is natural.

Actually, all pollution is man made, by definition ;)

But seriously, it is pretty easy to determine how much of the material emitted into the atmosphere is directly human generated , how much is indirectly human related, and how much is from the rest of the biosphere.

Glacial core sampling started out as an attempt to calibrate current pollution against the historical presence of pollutants in the atmosphere, and the past 30 years has generated a significant amount of data that calibrates that.


Quote[/b] ]
There are other, non-meteorological factors that affect Earth's climate, such as:

Again, all well known and all accounted for in the research.

Quote[/b] ]
There are likely many other factors I haven't covered that directly or indirectly affect global climate change. The points referenced above are merely the more important factors in atmospheric activity.

[nz3m]

If GW Bush was the one spouting all of this stupidity, would you embrace him as you do with Algore?

We all know the answer, you need not say anything.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (AB3BK @ Mar. 21 2007,18:29)]If GW Bush was the one spouting all of this stupidity, would you embrace him as you do with Algore?

We all know the answer, you need not say anything.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif
Al Gore is an over-the-top popularize trying to drum up action by convincing folk there's a crisis.

Global warming is a well documented phenomena that is closely correlated with human activity. It's not nonsense, and there are thousands of scientists whose work went into demonstrating that.

Why would anyone listen to either Gore or Bush on this topic when they can hear directly from the scientists?

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (AB3BK @ Mar. 21 2007,19:29)]If GW Bush was the one spouting all of this stupidity, would you embrace him as you do with Algore?

We all know the answer, you need not say anything.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif
I embrace neither Al Gore nor Bush with regards to global warming. I never bothered watching "Inconvenient Truth" and as far as I am concerned Al Gore has absolutely nothing to do with global warming.

I prefer to embrace science as opposed to politicians. I have read a considerable amount of scientific litterature on the subject and I conclude that the science behind global warming is quite sound and quite real.

If you think that global warming is all about a bunch of people swearing by AlGore I would suggest you delve into the science in greater depth and forget about Gore.

[nz3m]

I think it's quite selfish as human beings to think we are so powerful as to impact the weather of the earth.

The next time you are in an airplane flying to some distant treehugger convention, look out the window and take note to what you see. You see trees, mountains, and oceans.

If mother nature wants to take back the earth, we are not stopping her. Everything goes through a cycle, no matter what it is, even you and I.

What caused global warming after the ice age? Nature did

Cycles are natural. Do you think we can save the sun? No, it's going to burn out someday just like the others.

A dose of reality is what people need. Get off the high horse and realize the we are just a blip in time.

Dave

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (AB3BK @ Mar. 21 2007,19:52)]I think it's quite selfish as human beings to think we are so powerful as to impact the weather of the earth.

The next time you are in an airplane flying to some distant treehugger convention, look out the window and take note to what you see. #You see trees, mountains, and oceans.

If mother nature wants to take back the earth, we are not stopping her. #Everything goes through a cycle, no matter what it is, even you and I. #

What caused global warming after the ice age? #Nature did

Cycles are natural. #Do you think we can save the sun? #No, it's going to burn out someday just like the others.

A dose of reality is what people need. #Get off the high horse and realize the we are just a blip in time.

Dave
Quote[/b] ]
The next time you are in an airplane flying to some distant treehugger convention, look out the window and take note t


Well, I am a bona fide confirmed hippie tree hugger so where else whould I go but to a convention of my brother and sister hippie tree huggers. Of course we would never fly to such conventions.

Quote[/b] ]
I think it's quite selfish as human beings to think we are so powerful as to impact the weather of the earth.


If you spent a little time reading and learning the work of real scientists who dtudy the earths climate in great depth you'd understand why scientists have reached the conclusions they have.

Quote[/b] ]
Cycles are natural. #Do you think we can save the sun? #No, it's going to burn out someday just like the others.


Scientists have largely studied and accounted for natural cycles. The reality is that no natural process can explain the present rate of climate changes presently observed which, happen to coincide quite remarkably with man made activity. If you can explain what natural cycle accounts for recent climate change you might have a viable argument with whcih to challenge present day conclusions.

Quote[/b] ]
A dose of reality is what people need. #Get off the high horse and realize the we are just a blip in time.


I think scientists and most people in general are quite concious of the realities of humanity with respect to time. However that doesn't mean you ignore science or simply dismiss it on a whim.

[W2ILP]

I have known people of all academic levels. Many have managed to get degrees of all levels up to PhDs. I only have a BSEE and an MSEd myself. When presented with scientific data or other evidence , even for people who have been trained to use proper scientific methods when doing or evaluating research...there is always the factor of common sense that creeps in and it is not always pure science....but it is a lot more that an uneducated hunch. There are many mysteries that we can not yet explain by pure science, and I as a skeptical inquirer don't care to explain them with mythology, science fiction, or any religious or political supernatural mumbo-jumbo. Man made mumbo-jumbo may be worse than man made CO2.

Not too many people have a degree in PHILOSOPHY, but any intelligent people, who do a lot of reading and a lot of thinking can be amateur philosophers, without having any degrees or having majored in philosophy. We can read what those who do have PhDs in philosophy say, and see if they agree with us on scientific subjects...even into branches of science that, like us, they have never been academically trained to be specialists in.

When I was in grade school and in high school I had a friend who later earned a PhD in sociology. He was the late Dr. Stanley Milgram, who was to become world famous for his "Obedience to Authority" [electric chair] experiments. Stanley was a lot smarter than I was and as kids we discussed a lot of stuff. Most of the time I learned things from Stanley that I could not learn from our school teachers. He made observations about politics, religion and sociology. He was able to look objectively at our lower middle class existence in The Bronx. When I try to evaluate stuff now..I always start by thinking ..."What would Stan say about this situation?" I'm quite sure that he would be in favor of impeaching the president of the USA for invading Iraq...and I'm fairly sure that he would be highly skeptical about man-made greenhouse effect as a significant cause for present global warming. He isn't alive now...so I can't really speak for him...but he was right about the unnecessary Vietnam War and about the foolishness of expecting a nuclear attack from the USSR, and the fact that China would some day evolve to be a capitalist nation. He also had much to say about the fact that Israel would some day be a cause for Muslim revenge against the USA. His father was a Turkish Jew, who had discussed the danger of the creation of the state of Israel when it was first founded. Mr. Milgram knew a lot about Muslims and the fact that they could never peacefully recognize Israel as a sovereign state. Neither Stan or his dad had any degrees at that time but they read the news and they also had a good idea about what makes the people and the leaders think and act. I have a cousin who is a professional psychologist and he is supposed to understand people...but he is no Stanley Milgram...Nope... He doesn't have that kind of IQ and it doesn't matter that he has a PhD, because he isn't even an amateur philosopher. He can't think for the sake of thinking...unless it involves a fee for a scheduled appointment.

After reading books by Daniel C. Dennett, who is a professional philosopher..I have come to understand that one must understand a lot about sociology, which is really an abstract science, in order to understand the motives of people and hence the motives of societies of people. Motives are based on love or fear and are part of our survival skills. Advertisers and politicians must play upon what they believe will motivate us and they often do so by creating FEAR...even if they must greatly exaggerated. It is sad to see that some otherwise logical and ethical "scientists", will jump on the bandwagon of the disaster mongers, without realizing that they are being used.

I don't see anything wrong about hugging a tree...but don't chop down a healthy tree if someone tells you that it might be killed by fungus...even when it has no fungus. In short..avoid throwing the baby out with the wash-water because some religious, political leader or snake oil salesman tells you the water is dirty so the kid can never be clean.

w2ilp (I Like Philosophy)...and that is my own amateur extra class philosophy....and that's the truuuff....although I can provide no scientific proof....and certainly no supernatural proof.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ Mar. 21 2007,18:13)]Quote[/b] ]
Actually it's not a myth,it's a fact.



Here we go, Paul N0JAA

How do you reply to that?

No its not
Yes it is
No its not
yes it is
No its not....and on and on.

This is why a reasonable debate can't take place on Ragchew. There's just no debating such blunt, unbendable, and quite sily replies. Of course, Global Warming is a FACT as is Global Cooling. However, anthropogenic GW is NOT a fact. It is a HYPOTHESIS that is becoming widely accepted. Just like "evolution" is NOT a fact, it is a theory. Theories only become facts when they are proven. Until they are proven, they remain hypothesis...and until we have another decade or so of temperature increases, we can only regard this as a theory. Facts are things provable. Global climate forcasting is NOT a provable science. It is a theoretical science.

But Paul, I'll let you pick up the debate on this topic. When your wheels start spinning, feel free to give up.

(You may as well be debating a computer)
Quote[/b] ]
However, anthropogenic GW is NOT a fact. It is a HYPOTHESIS that is becoming widely accepted.
Just like "evolution" is NOT a fact, it is a theory. Theories only become facts when they are proven. Until they are proven, they remain hypothesis...and until we have another decade or so of temperature increases, we can only regard this as a theory. Facts are things provable. Global climate forcasting is NOT a provable science. It is a theoretical science.


Wow Heath, hate to say it but you are showing a lack of even a fundamental understanding of the workings of science. There is no such thing as "proof" in science. Theories are not proven in science. A scientific theory is a best fit logical interpretation of the available facts (data). In other words theories are supported by observed facts they are not proven.

Thus evolution is a theory. There is no proof to the theory of evolution. Evolution is well supported by observed facts. Same for anthropogenic global warming. AGW is a theory not a hypothesis because it is supported by data.

Although I posted this link about a dozen times I will post it again. It's written in simple, easy to understand terms.Read it and you'll have a clearer picture of what is meant by hypothesis, theory, and proof.

Link (http://www.carlton.srsd119.ca/chemical/Proof/default.htm)

[kg4kww]

Yes Global Warming if true is man made.
I think we are seeing the dawn of a new ice age.

[kg4kww]

I suggest that you all look at this video and then make up your mind.

NASA Video;Global Warming (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/videos/earth/ipy20070320/)

[W2ILP]

n2ize

There are scientific proofs that are LAWS. #Ohm's Law is one. #It is based on one of Maxwell's equations which are also Laws of electromagnetics. #You can prove E = IR anywhere. #It will always be repetitive proof with no exception. #You can devise instrumentation that is based on its recognized units of measure and any error can be explained by tolerances of your volt-ohm meters.

If we devise a measurement system that is a given...it can follow that the math involved can be generalized and standardized to always work out. #For example if we say that there are 100 cents in one dollar...this man-made standard can always be true. #If it were not there could be no standard way to account for money. #We can measure chemicals and repeat experiments with them that under the same conditions repeat the same quantitative and qualitative results. #This is proof positive and it is scientific. #There are however many things that are not scientific some are too random to even attach theories to...others are only statistically probable but not always individually predictable ...like the throw of dice.

In short: a hypothesis is something we want to experiment about. #A theory is based on some logical reason to believe that a certain hypothesis may be statistically significant...but a Law of chemistry, physics, mechanics, etc. is true for all cases, except where specific limitations may be known to exist, as in the case of F = MA. # #There are laws for example: Charles' Law and Boyle's Law involving gasses...but they say nothing about GW. #They are mathematically accepted. #There are theories, such as evolution that may never be proved by Man...they are based on observation of life forms that have been linked by DNA studies recently and are believed to have evolved from common ancestors...but even such linkage proves nothing because there have been many life forms that seem to have evolved without having been the fittest. #Why do we design cars with rear view mirrors...but humans don't have eyes in back of their heads?...for example...or why didn't humans evolve with stronger necks when they evolved to walk standing up. #Our heads are too heavy for our necks in my opinion and should have been redesigned by evolution. #I don't see it happening because shirt neck sizes haven't changed in centuries.

This all started because you guys are trying to define science and what is adequate proof. #Time can only tell the correctness of prophecies But even if something predicted does come to pass it may not come to pass for hypothetical reasons without further research. # ENUF SED.

w2ilp (I'd Like Proof)...but unfortunately in most cases I can get only statistical probabilities. #There is always the unlikely possibility of a freak of nature. #It was Kepler who said if you could live to drop a pen an infinite number of times, #you would have to allow for the possibility that at one time it might fall up. #Perhaps there might be that much of an exception to the LAW of GRAVITY...but Newton's Laws are good enough for government work anywhere where the gravity of the situation is known. There are however scientists who are always trying to break laws and create cool super conductivity or anti-gravity. Some want to look for them in a THEORETICAL big bang or a black hole. Unfortunately there are no universal science police to stop them.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ Mar. 21 2007,20:43)]Not too many people have a degree in PHILOSOPHY, but any intelligent people, who do a lot of reading and a lot of thinking can be amateur philosophers, without having any degrees or having majored in philosophy.

I had the good fortune to receive tutoring in the philosophy of science from some very good philosophers. It was quiet an education in resulted in my writing (but, as usual, not completing,) the talk.origins "What is Science?" FAQ.

Quote[/b] ]Motives are based on love or fear and are part of our survival skills.

My mother used to claim that boredom was a prime source of motivation. Now that my grandkid is in middle school, I finally understand what she was saying.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ Mar. 21 2007,21:45)]n2ize

There are scientific proofs that are LAWS. Ohm's Law is one. It is based on one of Maxwell's equations which are also Laws of electromagnetics. You can prove E = IR anywhere. It will always be repetitive proof with no exception. You can devise instrumentation that is based on its recognized units of measure and any error can be explained by tolerances of your volt-ohm meters.


Ohm's Law (which neither derives from Maxwell's equations nor is "E=IR") is not a proof of anything.

Rather, it is a description of a measured empirical relationship.

That's all any "law" of science is: A description, usually mathematical, of an observed relationship.

Quote[/b] ]We can measure chemicals and repeat experiments with them that under the same conditions repeat the same quantitative and qualitative results.

Maybe you can. I never could get repeatable results in organic chemistry lab.

Quote[/b] ]This is proof positive and it is scientific.

Repeatability of an experiment isn't proof of anything, other than that you've managed to repeat the experiment.

Quote[/b] ]but a Law of chemistry, physics, mechanics, etc. is true for all cases, except where specific limitations may be known to exist, as in the case of F = MA.

Sorry, but no. Classical dynamics versus quantum mechanics is a good demonstration of the contrary. Newton's "laws" are still very useful. In the sense that you mean "proof", they've never been proven. A "Law" is an empirical relationship that has been evaluated. It tells you how the universe operates, but it doesn't tell you why it operates that way.

This is the key difference between observation and theory, by the way. Observation describes, theory explains. Laws always are observations. They're never theories.

Go back to your oversimplified version of Ohm's law, for example. It doesn't tell you why E=IR. Only that E=IR.

Take another example, this time one in which language got in the way. The word "evolution" is used to name two things. One is a 'fact' in the scientific sense: It has been observed. Species evolve. With the right equipment you can even demonstrate evolution in a classroom in a reasonable time frame.

But the word "evolution" is also the name of a theory. It is the explanation of how things evolve (genetics, mutation) and an attempt to explain why they evolve (selection).

Theories are never "proven". Hawking wrote words to the effect "the best we can hope is that our models match our observations."

[ab8ro]

I wonder if we can get through page twelve without confusing theory, law, and proof? It always seems like these conversations are just about ready to take off and we get yet another post that suggests the poster hasn't read the previous X (where X is sufficiently large) pages.

[n0jaa]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Mar. 21 2007,20:52)]Quote[/b] ]
Man-made pollution may factor into this, but how much is currently impossible to ascertain, as it is extremely difficult to determine how much pollution is man-made and how much is natural.


This statement too is quite false. It is quite possible to make these determinations to a reasonable degree.
I still don't believe global warming is a verified fact, given the numerous factors that affect the atmosphere.

However, I will take you up on your statement. #If you say that man-made pollution is discernable, how is this determination made? #How do you separate natural pollution from man-made pollution? #What method is used to determine if a particular molecule is natural or man-made?

With the atmosphere as dynamic as it is, I don't see how such a determination can be made with any significant degree of accuracy. #Perhaps there is such a method and I am just not aware of it.

I am by no means a professional meteorologist, but climatology has been a field of interest to me for many years.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (n0jaa @ Mar. 22 2007,08:48)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Mar. 21 2007,20:52)]Quote[/b] ]
Man-made pollution may factor into this, but how much is currently impossible to ascertain, as it is extremely difficult to determine how much pollution is man-made and how much is natural.


This statement too is quite false. It is quite possible to make these determinations to a reasonable degree.
I still don't believe global warming is a verified fact, given the numerous factors that affect the atmosphere.

However, I will take you up on your statement. #If you say that man-made pollution is discernable, how is this determination made? #How do you separate natural pollution from man-made pollution? #What method is used to determine if a particular molecule is natural or man-made?

With the atmosphere as dynamic as it is, I don't see how such a determination can be made with any significant degree of accuracy. #Perhaps there is such a method and I am just not aware of it.

I am by no means a professional meteorologist, but climatology has been a field of interest to me for many years.
I belive either Marty or Brian adressed this several posts back.But in the event they haven't give me a little time and I'll provide some direct links to articles explaining this in greater depth.

In the mean time here is a preliminary article that you might find interesting (see link below) and it does indeed relate to the question(s) at hand. Of course I'll provide some deeper references as time permits.

Linque (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87)

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] ]
Theories are never "proven". Hawking wrote words to the effect "the best we can hope is that our models match our observations."


I think a point of confusions lies in that many people confuse the idea of a mathematical proof of a stated theorem with that of "proving" a scientific theory. Since many laws in science are expressed in mathematical terms and since mathematical theorems often have formal proofs (logically) it is assumed that such proofs carry into the realm of science in general, That is why many people assume that a scientific law is a theory which has finally been "proven". I had this common misconception in my early undergrad years when i viewed mathematics as "the ultimate science" because it had both theorems and formal proofs. Unfortunately this misconception prevailsin the minds of many.

[G8ADD]

Quote[/b] (n0jaa @ Mar. 22 2007,08:48)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Mar. 21 2007,20:52)]Quote[/b] ]
Man-made pollution may factor into this, but how much is currently impossible to ascertain, as it is extremely difficult to determine how much pollution is man-made and how much is natural.


This statement too is quite false. It is quite possible to make these determinations to a reasonable degree.
I still don't believe global warming is a verified fact, given the numerous factors that affect the atmosphere.

However, I will take you up on your statement. If you say that man-made pollution is discernable, how is this determination made? How do you separate natural pollution from man-made pollution? What method is used to determine if a particular molecule is natural or man-made?

With the atmosphere as dynamic as it is, I don't see how such a determination can be made with any significant degree of accuracy. Perhaps there is such a method and I am just not aware of it.

I am by no means a professional meteorologist, but climatology has been a field of interest to me for many years.
Some pollutants need no further identification: a smog in a city when the surrounding countryside is clear other than the down-wind plume can be assumed to be man-made. A plume of sulphur fumes down-wind of a coal-burning power plant is self identifying, too, as is the plume of calcareous dust downwind of a cement manufactory. More subtle pollutants such as nitrates in ground water or heavy metals in the vicinity of smelters are also self evident, and can be determined with simple chemical tests carried in a man pack and applied by a technician with minimal training.

Many if not most pollutants carry an unequivocal trace chemical signature or a significant peculiarity of structure. Sooty particles from an oil fire have both and can easily be distinguished from, say, sooty particles from a forest fire. Other pollutants are concentrated in organisms at the top of the food chain; DDT was concentrated in raptors and caused population collapses in them. On the other hand arsenic and other heavy metals are concentrated in molluscs and whilst seemingly tolerated by them makes them toxic to humans.

Believe me, the detection of pollutants and determination of their source is an important field today: as a consequence of staffing reductions I had to set out experiments and assist at classes at the Environmental Sciences Dept. in addition to my own duties, and learned a lot: for instance merely by observing what species of invertebrates are present and absent in pools and streams it is possible to determine what pollutants should be tested for first! In my home city with a population of about a million there are several firms specialising in Environmental Science with an emphasis on the determination of pollutants, but then there is a history of a couple of hundred years of heavy industry here which has led to widespread pollution: only last year home owners and allotment gardeners in one area nearby were told they could not eat any produce they grew because of lead and arsenic pollution from industries that had closed down forty years before!

I can give no more than a few instances here, but if I am any judge I think if you followed up the topic for yourself you would find it fascinating!

73

Brian G8ADD

[n0jaa]

I'm going to pursue all of the links posted. #Also, I'll wade through all the posts, comments, counter-comments, arguments, antics, and unrelated drivel to read the relevant posts. #Might take a while.


At this point, I'm willing to keep an open mind about the issue.

[n0jaa]

Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Mar. 16 2007,20:33)]Since we're talking about urban heat islands, try this link to the Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr., research group:

http://climatesci.colorado.edu/

A lot of good stuff from a well-respected researcher in the field who doesn't necessarily go along with the GW orthodoxy.
Can you provide another link to this article? The webpage is either timing out, or it is no longer available. I cannot access it. Thanks.

[K5FH]

Quote[/b] (n0jaa @ Mar. 22 2007,13:40)]Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Mar. 16 2007,20:33)]Since we're talking about urban heat islands, try this link to the Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr., research group:

http://climatesci.colorado.edu/

A lot of good stuff from a well-respected researcher in the field who doesn't necessarily go along with the GW orthodoxy.
Can you provide another link to this article? #The webpage is either timing out, or it is no longer available. #I cannot access it. #Thanks.
Apparently the URL changed in the last few days. #Try

http://cires.colorado.edu/science/groups/pielke/

[n0jaa]

Got the link that time. Thanks. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[KE5FRF]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Mar. 21 2007,23:58)]Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ Mar. 21 2007,18:13)]Quote[/b] ]
Actually it's not a myth,it's a fact.



Here we go, Paul N0JAA

How do you reply to that?

No its not
Yes it is
No its not
yes it is
No its not....and on and on.

This is why a reasonable debate can't take place on Ragchew. There's just no debating such blunt, unbendable, and quite sily replies. Of course, Global Warming is a FACT as is Global Cooling. However, anthropogenic GW is NOT a fact. It is a HYPOTHESIS that is becoming widely accepted. Just like "evolution" is NOT a fact, it is a theory. Theories only become facts when they are proven. Until they are proven, they remain hypothesis...and until we have another decade or so of temperature increases, we can only regard this as a theory. Facts are things provable. Global climate forcasting is NOT a provable science. It is a theoretical science.

But Paul, I'll let you pick up the debate on this topic. When your wheels start spinning, feel free to give up.

(You may as well be debating a computer)
Quote[/b] ]
However, anthropogenic GW is NOT a fact. It is a HYPOTHESIS that is becoming widely accepted.
Just like "evolution" is NOT a fact, it is a theory. Theories only become facts when they are proven. Until they are proven, they remain hypothesis...and until we have another decade or so of temperature increases, we can only regard this as a theory. Facts are things provable. Global climate forcasting is NOT a provable science. It is a theoretical science.


Wow Heath, hate to say it but you are showing a lack of even a fundamental understanding of the workings of science. There is no such thing as "proof" in science. Theories are not proven in science. A scientific theory is a best fit logical interpretation of the available facts (data). In other words theories are supported by observed facts they are not proven.

Thus evolution is a theory. There is no proof to the theory of evolution. Evolution is well supported by observed facts. Same for anthropogenic global warming. AGW is a theory not a hypothesis because it is supported by data.

Although I posted this link about a dozen times I will post it again. It's written in simple, easy to understand terms.Read it and you'll have a clearer picture of what is meant by hypothesis, theory, and proof.

Link (http://www.carlton.srsd119.ca/chemical/Proof/default.htm)
You have no idea what you are talking about, John...You are arguing the same ridiculous, fruitless point as Marty. You guys must have been seperated at birth. AS W2ILP just told you...there are LAWS in science, and there are THEORIES in science. LAWS can be proven, demonstrated, quantified, and repeated. LAWS are factual. It takes a ground breaking discovery to alter science that is considered a law of nature. Some of Newton's laws come to mind. Newton said, "What goes up must come down". Well, this was before we understood fully the nature of gravity...thus, his statement had to be modified to allow for bodies that are thrust with sufficient force to escape the pull of gravity.

Theories, on the other hand, are not set in stone. Theories offer plausible explanations for phenomenon, but REMAIN THEORY until proof can be offered. Evolution is still considered a theory, because sufficient proof can not be demonstrated in nature. Have you ever observed an animal evolve? NO. You might argue that breeding is evolution. Sorry, but every product of genetic manipulation still produces A DOG. We've never seen a new species of advanced creature come from the womb of a less developed species. Breed two cats...you get another cat. Even in the lab, genetic manipulation produces an infertile offspring. And evolution has not been demonstrated in nature, either. All we have to go by is fossils. Fossils are not proof because they don't demonstrate evolution, they just offer evidence. AT ANY RATE...I for one do believe evolution occurs and am able to maintain my Christian beliefs despite it. HOWEVER, it is still only a theory, unproven despite good evidence.

Anthropogenic GW is also a theory. It can't be proven. The closest thing to proof would be years and years of documented observation. Unfortunately, accurate, calibarated scientific instruments that measure temperature have not been around long enough to offer definitive proof of anthropogenic GW. ...yaddayadda

I'm not going to go any further, I'd just be echoing the same thing I've echoed before.

[KE5FRF]

A good example of theory is the Bohr model of the atom. A lot of evidence, mathematics, and demonstratable chemistry lend themselves to the Bohr model. The Bohr model offers the best explanation that our minds can understand for how the atom looks and works. However, we don't have microscopic instruments powerful enough to actually see what an atom looks like. While we can be pretty sure that atoms behave a certain way, and the Bohr model helps us understand it, we still have no clear picture of what an atom actually looks like. Crystal lattices offer the best physical "pictures" of what atoms look like, but still are not proof. Aromatic hydrocarbons like Benzene also help us understand how atoms behave, and we can draw a model of a benzene molecule...however, we still don't know with absolute certainty what a single benzene molecule looks like.

Theories help us understand things. Theories are backed up by observable phenomenon. But theories are NOT facts. Period.

[N5NPO]

Speaking of Atoms and such....
What is it that keeps the electrons in their orbit around the neucleus of an atom? What keeps their orbit from decaying?
What would happen if the orbit did decay?

[n2ize]

Did you even bother to read the information at the link I provided ? Did you take the breif quiz at the end ?? It is explained as about as simply as it can be explained. And the information displayed at thatlink can be verified by numerous sources including mose university science professors or Stephen Hawkings for that matter.

What you don't seem to understand (or want to understand) is that LAWS in science are not "proven theories". If you bothered to read the link i gave you you would/should understand this. Facts are observable data, tangible things we can see, hear, taste,smell or measure., Laws DESCRIBE things/phenomenon. However LAWS tell us NOTHING about the thing/phenomenon itself other than it's behavior. The laws of gravity are NOT proven theories about gravity. They are merely mathematical descriptions of the behavior of a body acted upon by a gravitational force. Same for Ohms law.It mathematically describes the behavior of a current in a circuit. But it tells us NOTHING about what that current is. For that understanding we have to rely on THEORY.

Theories are indeed not set in stone. Where did I say they were ? Rather , i stated that in science theories are never proven. Theories are SUPPORTED by data but not proven. This was also explained in a rather straightforward manner in the link I provided and can be readily verified.This is true of all scientific theories. Be it evolution, atomic theory, heliocentric theory, etc. If we dismissed scientific theory for lack of proof we'd be huddled in dark caves wondering if and when the sun God will turn the lights back on. In science when explaining the natural world the scientists does not have the luxury of "proof" as does the mathematician operating within a well defined space.

I am not going to go into a lengthy sermon regarding the nuances of evolution here as it would be pointless unless you can accept the definition of what is a scientific law, a hypothesis,and a theory and understand how they differ. I will say that as a theory evolution is EXTREMELY well supported and that the evidence in support of evolution is overwhelming.
Biological evolution is the change in the general characteristics of a population over time. it has nothing to do with a dog breeding a human or a fish breeding a cat,etc. However evolution does indeed suggest that speciation can occur. In any event I believe their are other threads on evolution going as we speak so I'll leave it here unless someone else wants to get their 2 cents in.

Quote[/b] ]
HOWEVER, it is still only a theory, unproven despite good evidence.


Same is true for every scientific theory. As Hawking's points out you can never prove a theory. Even if it is a "good theory".

[KE5FRF]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Mar. 22 2007,21:09)]
Did you even bother to read the information at the link I provided ? Did you take the breif quiz at the end ?? It is explained as about as simply as it can be explained. #And #the information displayed at thatlink can be verified by numerous sources including mose university science professors or Stephen Hawkings for that matter.

What you don't seem to understand (or want to understand) #is that LAWS in science are not "proven theories". If you bothered to read the link i gave you you would/should understand this. Facts are observable data, tangible things we can see, hear, taste,smell or measure., Laws DESCRIBE things/phenomenon. However LAWS tell us NOTHING about the thing/phenomenon itself other than it's behavior. The laws of gravity are NOT proven theories about gravity. They are merely mathematical descriptions of the behavior of a body acted upon by a gravitational force. Same for Ohms law.It mathematically describes the behavior of a current in a circuit. But it tells us NOTHING about what that current is. For that understanding we have to rely on THEORY.

Theories are indeed not set in stone. Where did I say they were ? Rather , i stated that in science theories are never proven. Theories are SUPPORTED by data but not proven. This was also explained in a rather straightforward manner in the link I provided and can be readily verified.This is true of all scientific theories. Be it evolution, atomic theory, heliocentric theory, etc. If we dismissed scientific theory for lack of proof we'd be huddled in dark caves wondering if and when the sun God will turn the lights back on. # In science when explaining the natural world the scientists does not have the luxury of "proof" as does the mathematician operating within a well defined space.

I am not going to go into a lengthy sermon regarding the nuances of evolution here as it would be pointless unless you can accept the definition of what is a scientific law, a hypothesis,and a theory and understand how they differ. I will say that as a theory evolution is EXTREMELY well supported and that the evidence in support of evolution is overwhelming.
Biological evolution is the change in the general characteristics of a population over time. it has nothing to do with a dog breeding a human or a fish breeding a cat,etc. However evolution does indeed suggest that speciation can occur. In any event I believe their are other threads on evolution going as we speak so I'll leave it here unless someone else wants to get their 2 cents in.

Quote[/b] ]
HOWEVER, it is still only a theory, unproven despite good evidence.


Same is true for every scientific theory. As Hawking's points out you can never prove a theory. Even if it is a "good theory".
A link? A link?

OMG A link?

Internet PhDs, gotta love'em.

I'll take the age old definitions that I learned in college and high school over a "link" anyday. I was a straigh A student in science. I don't need an internet education. Your "link" isn't saying anything different than what I'm saying....except for the "spin" it puts on definitions. That "spin" is the same "spin" that anyone, like yourself, who wants the theories they have accepted to be considered fact.

There is a problem with that. Sometimes two plausible theories are introduced to explain an observed phenomenon. What happens then? Nothing. Both theories are considered, and one might gain broader acceptance than the other. But neither are considered FACT. An example would be electron flow theory. The semiconductor era ushered in the thought that electrons flow from negative to positive, where before, the theory was that they flowed from positive to negative. Both are THEORIES. Both are plausible. One has gained wide acceptance because it fits semiconductor theory better. But NEITHER are considered fact.

This all got started when you erroneously said that Anthropogenic GW is a FACT. It isn't a FACT, it is a THEORY. A THEORY that has gained wide acceptance, but does not make it FACT based on acceptance alone.

Geesh, internet PhDs, gotta love'em.

[KE5FRF]

Quote[/b] ]I am not going to go into a lengthy sermon

Please don't. You aren't qualified to preach anything.

[KE5FRF]

OMG.

You are in a dream world. We have a lot more science that is known fact than you seem to think. We know for a fact that the Earth rotates around an axis. We know for a fact the Earth revolves around the sun. We also know that other bodies revolve around the sun. We also know the forces that are behind said phenomenon. We know about gravity and we know about centripetal forces. That they exist are FACTS. The interraction of heavenly bodies as they tug and pull are observeable FACTS. These are all FACTS that are not debated. Now, someone might consider how those forces exist, where they come from, how they are generated etc. This would be a hypothesis. The same person might seek to demonstrate his hypothesis...perhaps test his ideas in a lab. All the data he collects would certainly contribute to forumlating a theory. Here is where your definition gets ridiculous. If his data supports his hypothesis, then the hypothsis and theory are the same! So indeed, GW is a theory, but it started out as a hypothesis. I'm pretty sure the hypothesis of the first scientists to start identifying anthropogenic GW was not a whole lot different than the theory we have now, except for a lack of supporting data.

Either way, you are splitting hairs when it comes to the definition. Either way, Anth. GW is not a proven theory, and there are other plausible theories out there to explain it, at least partially. Either way, we have to use a bit of speculation to come up with our theory. Either way, the data as presented can lead to different conclusions. Either way, this matter isn't settled no matter how many Internet PhDs say it is. Either way, we've spent a dozen pages pretending that we are scientists, when none of us are. Either way, what is going to happen will happen, and nadda we can do about it. Either way, this is a game of "yes it is" "no it isn't". Either way, you and I ought to be out planting a tree rather than bickering over theories. Either way, I don't need an "edumication" from you. And I suspect you don't need one from me. Either way, Marty is still a fraud. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif Either way, I'm so sick of this I could spit nails. Either way, you are going to come back with another "You don't understand science" comment...that is my Hypothesis. Wanna bet on you skipping the theory part and turning it into fact? Good night, i'M going to bed.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ Mar. 22 2007,17:12)]AS W2ILP just told you...there are LAWS in science, and there are THEORIES in science. LAWS can be proven, demonstrated, quantified, and repeated.

Not all laws in science are quantified, especially not those in the social sciences. None can be "proven" in either the mathematical or the epistemological sense.

Quote[/b] ]Newton said, "What goes up must come down". Well, this was before we understood fully the nature of gravity...thus, his statement had to be modified to allow for bodies that are thrust with sufficient force to escape the pull of gravity.

Newton never said that, and he fully understood the idea of escape velocity.

Quote[/b] ] Theories offer plausible explanations for phenomenon, but REMAIN THEORY until proof can be offered.

You don't prove (or disprove) a theory.

Quote[/b] ]Evolution is still considered a theory, because sufficient proof can not be demonstrated in nature.

Um, no. Evolution is an observation. One can demonstrate it in the classroom in a short period of time with a sufficient set of equipment.

The fact of evolution is also described by the theory of evolution.


Quote[/b] ]Have you ever observed an animal evolve?

You never will. Individuals don't evolve, species do.

Quote[/b] ]We've never seen a new species of advanced creature come from the womb of a less developed species.

That sentence betrays an amazing amount of ignorance of both the observation of evolution and the theory of evolution.

Quote[/b] ]Even in the lab, genetic manipulation produces an infertile offspring.

That sentence betrays an amazing amount of ignorance about genetic manipulation. Read up on ADM's GMO plants.

Quote[/b] ]Anthropogenic GW is also a theory. It can't be proven. The closest thing to proof would be years and years of documented observation. Unfortunately, accurate, calibarated scientific instruments that measure temperature have not been around long enough to offer definitive proof of anthropogenic GW.

There are temperature measurements dating back 300 years that were made with calibrated instruments that still exist.

Quote[/b] ]I'm not going to go any further, I'd just be echoing the same thing I've echoed before.

Repeating an error does not make it correct.

Evolution has been observed in both the field and the lab. Genetic manipulation has been used on plants to produce modified plants which are definitely fertile and in which the modification runs true. Newton understood mechanics more than well enough to understand escape velocity.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ Mar. 22 2007,20:14)]OMG.

You are in a dream world. We have a lot more science that is known fact than you seem to think. We know for a fact that the Earth rotates around an axis. We know for a fact the Earth revolves around the sun. We also know that other bodies revolve around the sun. We also know the forces that are behind said phenomenon. We know about gravity and we know about centripetal forces. That they exist are FACTS. The interraction of heavenly bodies as they tug and pull are observeable FACTS. These are all FACTS that are not debated. Now, someone might consider how those forces exist, where they come from, how they are generated etc. This would be a hypothesis. The same person might seek to demonstrate his hypothesis...perhaps test his ideas in a lab. All the data he collects would certainly contribute to forumlating a theory. Here is where your definition gets ridiculous. If his data supports his hypothesis, then the hypothsis and theory are the same! So indeed, GW is a theory, but it started out as a hypothesis. I'm pretty sure the hypothesis of the first scientists to start identifying anthropogenic GW was not a whole lot different than the theory we have now, except for a lack of supporting data.

Either way, you are splitting hairs when it comes to the definition. Either way, Anth. GW is not a proven theory, and there are other plausible theories out there to explain it, at least partially. Either way, we have to use a bit of speculation to come up with our theory. Either way, the data as presented can lead to different conclusions. Either way, this matter isn't settled no matter how many Internet PhDs say it is. Either way, we've spent a dozen pages pretending that we are scientists, when none of us are. Either way, what is going to happen will happen, and nadda we can do about it. Either way, this is a game of "yes it is" "no it isn't". Either way, you and I ought to be out planting a tree rather than bickering over theories. Either way, I don't need an "edumication" from you. And I suspect you don't need one from me. Either way, Marty is still a fraud. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif Either way, I'm so sick of this I could spit nails. Either way, you are going to come back with another "You don't understand science" comment...that is my Hypothesis. Wanna bet on you skipping the theory part and turning it into fact? Good night, i'M going to bed.
Heath, how can I discuss science with you if you refuse to understand the basic difference between "theory", "hypothesis", "law", and, "data/facts" ?
How can I discuss atomic theory, evolution or global warming with you if oyu are going to continue to tell me these are "unproven" theories when in reality you don't have "proof" of theory in science ? How can I discuss gravity with you if you refuse to accept the fact that the "Laws of gravity" descibe the effect of "gravity" on a body in a gravitational field but they telll us NOTHING about what gravity is.

If you refuse to put scientific concepts into proper perspective from which we can conduct a viable discussion ?? I clearly posted a link which explained these concepts in plain Jane English ?? Did you even bother to read it ??

Quote[/b] ]
We know for a fact that the Earth rotates around an axis. We know for a fact the Earth revolves around the sun.


No, we have a THEORY that describes the sun as the "center" of the solar system. It is the facts (observations, measurements, etc.) that SUPPORT this theory.

[K3XR]

Take the pledge AL.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=27522

[K3XR]

Not to worry, the activist will save the day.

http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/3b64f274-53f9-4fb3-be8d-285834ea029b

[KE5FRF]

Can you believe these guys?

Internet PhDs, gotta love'em.

[K3XR]

Looks like the Eco Nazis missed this group of kids.

http://www.longmontfyi.com/Local-Story.asp?ID=15357

[KE5FRF]

Wow, the sun is the center of the solar system. Theory. Wow. I guess it's still a theory that the Earth is round too, eh?

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ Mar. 23 2007,17:52)]Wow, the sun is the center of the solar system. Theory. Wow. I guess it's still a theory that the Earth is round too, eh?
Heliocentricity is a THEORY yes. It is well supported,so well supported that it is rarely ever questioned in these modern times. We can make predictions based on the heliocentric model of our solar system. However, as Hawkings states, a theory is disrupted if one can find a single repeatable observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory. In other words no matter how many experimental observations we make which coincide with the theory we can never be sure that same experiment will produce a result which does not., Facts support heliocentricity to the point where it is often treated as factual yet in and of itself it is not.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ Mar. 23 2007,16:52)]Wow, the sun is the center of the solar system. Theory. Wow. I guess it's still a theory that the Earth is round too, eh?
The heliocentric solar system is a model that's useful for some purposes but, in general, doesn't describe the actual complex relationships of the solar system, its relationship to the galaxy, and that whole system's movement through space.

It's not even technically correct, as the sun is just another one of the orbiting bodies in the N-body problem that is our solar system. Fortunately it is sufficiently large that the orbit point is contained within it and its own orbit is so small that it's negligible for most purposes.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Mar. 23 2007,17:10)]However, as Hawkings states, a theory is disrupted if one can find a single repeatable observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory. In other words no matter how many experimental observations we make which coincide with the theory we can never be sure that same experiment will produce a result which does not., Facts support heliocentricity to the point where it is often treated as factual yet in and of itself it is not.
An excellent example of this is Kuhn's theory of falsifiability. When Kuhn wrote The Structure of Scientific Revolutions the case he made for falsifiability, based on his example of the Michaelson-Morley experiment, was so compelling that to these days it is still taught in high schools.

But it has been a long time since Feyerabend showed that historically so-called 'falsifying' experiments are never recognized as such until long after the theory they've "falsified" has been abandoned.

The problem, as Feyerabend pointed out, is that any experiment that disrupts a theory can typically be accounted for by making ad-hoc modifications to the theory. You can see that at work now in the history of string-theory, for example.

It has been more than fifty years since a Nobel prize winning physicist wrote his essay explaining that there is no "scientific method" but high school students and even undergraduates are still taught the old formulation as if science really worked that way.

If anyone is seriously interested in understanding what science is and isn't, I always recommend For and Against Method by Imre Lakatos and Paul Feyerabend (sort of) and The Character of Physical Law by Richard Feynman.

It ain't what poor Heath learned in high school, but it's what real scientist and those who study the philosophy of science understand science to be.

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ Mar. 23 2007,13:18)]Can you believe these guys?

Internet PhDs, gotta love'em.
One of the forums I lurked in the Compuserve days had online lawyers going at each other. That was worse IMO, because the placement of a comma would drown the reader in floods of minutia. My head hurts just thinking about it.

Compared to that experience, wading through the drippy ethics and leaky epistemology of global warming panic is a piece of cake. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

We had warming at Kuparuk today, as the brilliant Sun rose to 20 degrees above the horizon and I could feel its glorious warmth as the ambient rose from -35F to -24F. Blinding and wonderful.

[KE5FRF]

This song is dedicated to Marty and John...my heroes in science.


Artist: Thomas Dolby Lyrics
Song: She Blinded Me With Science Lyrics
It's poetry in motion
She turned her tender eyes to me
As deep as any ocean
As sweet as any harmony
Mmm - but she blinded me with science
"She blinded me with science!"
And failed me in biology

When I'm dancing close to her
"Blinding me with science - science!"
I can smell the chemicals
"Blinding me with science - science!"
"Science!"
"Science!"

Mmm - but it's poetry in motion
And when she turned her eyes to me
As deep as any ocean
As sweet as any harmony
Mmm - but she blinded me with science
And failed me in geometry

When she's dancing next to me
"Blinding me with science - science!"
"Science!"
I can hear machinery
"Blinding me with science - science!"
"Science!"

It's poetry in motion
And now she's making love to me
The spheres are in commotion
The elements in harmony
She blinded me with science
"She blinded me with science!"
And hit me with technology

"Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!"
I -I don't believe it!
There she goes again!
She's tidied up, and I can't find anything!
All my tubes and wires
And careful notes
And antiquated notions

But! - it's poetry in motion
And when she turned her eyes to me
As deep as any ocean
As sweet as any harmony
Mmm - but she blinded me with science
"She blinded me with - with science!"
She blinded me with

[KE5FRF]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Mar. 23 2007,20:10)]Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ Mar. 23 2007,17:52)]Wow, the sun is the center of the solar system. Theory. Wow. I guess it's still a theory that the Earth is round too, eh?
Heliocentricity is a THEORY yes. It is well supported,so well supported that it is rarely ever questioned in these modern times. We can make predictions based on the heliocentric model of our solar system. However, as Hawkings states, a theory is disrupted if one can find a single repeatable observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory. In other words no matter how many experimental observations we make which coincide with the theory we can never be sure that same experiment will produce a result which does not., Facts support heliocentricity to the point where it is often treated as factual yet in and of itself it is not.
You know, if you go to a bar and talk like this, you are very likely to meet hot women and score. Just so you know. Oh...wear a T-shirt that says "My I-Q is 160" You'll be horizontal in no time flat.

[KE5FRF]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Mar. 23 2007,21:07)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Mar. 23 2007,17:10)]However, as Hawkings states, a theory is disrupted if one can find a single repeatable observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory. In other words no matter how many experimental observations we make which coincide with the theory we can never be sure that same experiment will produce a result which does not., Facts support heliocentricity to the point where it is often treated as factual yet in and of itself it is not.
An excellent example of this is Kuhn's theory of falsifiability. When Kuhn wrote The Structure of Scientific Revolutions the case he made for falsifiability, based on his example of the Michaelson-Morley experiment, was so compelling that to these days it is still taught in high schools.

But it has been a long time since Feyerabend showed that historically so-called 'falsifying' experiments are never recognized as such until long after the theory they've "falsified" has been abandoned.

The problem, as Feyerabend pointed out, is that any experiment that disrupts a theory can typically be accounted for by making ad-hoc modifications to the theory. #You can see that at work now in the history of string-theory, for example.

It has been more than fifty years since a Nobel prize winning physicist wrote his essay explaining that there is no "scientific method" but high school students and even undergraduates are still taught the old formulation as if science really worked that way.

If anyone is seriously interested in understanding what science is and isn't, I always recommend For and Against Method by Imre Lakatos and Paul Feyerabend (sort of) and The Character of Physical Law by Richard Feynman.

It ain't what poor Heath learned in high school, but it's what #real scientist and those who study the philosophy of science understand science to be.
Marty, I take everything back. You are so brilliant, your light cast over us like the noonday sun. Impressive and magnificent a thing to behold.

[wv6z]

Well after reading every word on these past 12 pages I would like to than each and every one of you for enlightening me as to the truth. Heck, I always though global warming was caused by pine tree emissions and cow farts. Silly me.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Mar. 23 2007,19:07)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Mar. 23 2007,17:10)]However, as Hawkings states, a theory is disrupted if one can find a single repeatable observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory. In other words no matter how many experimental observations we make which coincide with the theory we can never be sure that same experiment will produce a result which does not., Facts support heliocentricity to the point where it is often treated as factual yet in and of itself it is not.
An excellent example of this is Kuhn's theory of falsifiability. When Kuhn wrote The Structure of Scientific Revolutions the case he made for falsifiability, based on his example of the Michaelson-Morley experiment, was so compelling that to these days it is still taught in high schools.

But it has been a long time since Feyerabend showed that historically so-called 'falsifying' experiments are never recognized as such until long after the theory they've "falsified" has been abandoned.

The problem, as Feyerabend pointed out, is that any experiment that disrupts a theory can typically be accounted for by making ad-hoc modifications to the theory. #You can see that at work now in the history of string-theory, for example.

It has been more than fifty years since a Nobel prize winning physicist wrote his essay explaining that there is no "scientific method" but high school students and even undergraduates are still taught the old formulation as if science really worked that way.

If anyone is seriously interested in understanding what science is and isn't, I always recommend For and Against Method by Imre Lakatos and Paul Feyerabend (sort of) and The Character of Physical Law by Richard Feynman.

It ain't what poor Heath learned in high school, but it's what #real scientist and those who study the philosophy of science understand science to be.
Quote[/b] ]
An excellent example of this is Kuhn's theory of falsifiability. When Kuhn wrote The Structure of Scientific Revolutions the case he made for falsifiability, based on his example of the Michaelson-Morley experiment, was so compelling that to these days it is still taught in high schools.


I am some what familiar #with the arguments of #Kuhn, Feyerabend, Lakatos, Popper and others but, I admit, it's been a while since I've delved in any depth so I'm probably gone a bit shallow on some of their arguments.

Quote[/b] ]
It has been more than fifty years since a Nobel prize winning physicist wrote his essay explaining that there is no "scientific method" but high school students and even undergraduates are still taught the old formulation as if science really worked that way.


Perhaps the logic behind this is that they may argue that impressionable young minds are better disciplined to accept a specified "scientific methodology" ..

Quote[/b] ]
The problem, as Feyerabend pointed out, is that any experiment that disrupts a theory can typically be accounted for by making ad-hoc modifications to the theory. #You can see that at work now in the history of string-theory, for example.


Feyerabend rejected the ad hoc argument of Lakatos but if I remember correctly not on the same grounds as Popper who considered it scientifically invalid. At least that's what I recall but as I said it's been a while so I am a bit flaky at the moment.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ Mar. 23 2007,20:00)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Mar. 23 2007,20:10)]Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ Mar. 23 2007,17:52)]Wow, the sun is the center of the solar system. Theory. Wow. I guess it's still a theory that the Earth is round too, eh?
Heliocentricity is a THEORY yes. It is well supported,so well supported that it is rarely ever questioned in these modern times. We can make predictions based on the heliocentric model of our solar system. However, as Hawkings states, a theory is disrupted if one can find a single repeatable observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory. In other words no matter how many experimental observations we make which coincide with the theory we can never be sure that same experiment will produce a result which does not., Facts support heliocentricity to the point where it is often treated as factual yet in and of itself it is not.
You know, if you go to a bar and talk like this, you are very likely to meet hot women and score. Just so you know. Oh...wear a T-shirt that says "My I-Q is 160" You'll be horizontal in no time flat.
Quote[/b] ]
You know, if you go to a bar and talk like this, you are very likely to meet hot women and score. Just so you know.


Actually you are correct. I have met my share of rather good looking dames who are pretty smart and dig guys who enjoy talking about stuff like this.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Mar. 23 2007,20:41)]Feyerabend rejected the ad hoc argument of Lakatos but if I remember correctly not on the same grounds as Popper who considered it scientifically invalid. At least that's what I recall but as I said it's been a while so I am a bit flaky at the moment.
Yes. Popper tried to formalize science along rigorous mathematical models and was a big believer in hypothesis falsification as an analog to proof by contradiction. Popper is probably more responsible for the myth of the scientific method than any other philosopher.

Lakatos understood Kuhn's thesis about scientific revolution but also realized that Kuhn, by looking at the history of quantum mechanics, was looking at a very unusual situation in science.

Taking a longer view of history than Kuhn did, Lakatos came up with the idea of "programmes" and the idea that research groups tend to form around a concept and milk the concept until it becomes a dead end.

Lakatos believed that Kuhnian revolutions occurred rarely and happened when a particular research group recognized that a programme was approaching a dead end. He thought the more common case was for one research group to continue up the dead end to irrelevance and eventually be replaced by a different research group with a different programme.

Lakatos took an evolutionary approach because he looked at a wider history of science than just the revolutionary period of physics.

Feyerabend rejected the ad hoc model of Lakatos because he took the view, expressed in Against Method that even Lakatos' programmes were more formal than science itself admits to.

Outside of physics it is very easy to see the sort of research programmes that Lakatos recognized, and his approach goes a long way towards explaining why some schools become noted for certain areas, like Carnegie Mellon and Robotics, or MIT and AI, and also explains why there tend to be competing camps, like the MIT and Stanford camps over AI, or the Stanford and Cambridge camps over linguistics.

Feyerabend went so far as to argue that no theory is ever meant to be complete and that no theory is ever consistent with all of the known observations.

One of his examples is the heliocentric model. He points out that the it is just as valid from the point of view of physics to say that the earth is the center of the universe and everything rotates around it as it is to say that the earth revolves around the sun. There is, after all, no privileged frame of reference, so it's just as valid to pick one as another. The "validity" of the heliocentric model, in Feyerabend's view, is its utility. It's simply easier to do the math if you adopt that convention than if you adopt the other.

[K3XR]

Your chance to save the planet.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11187

[al2i]

Despite the slow billion year warming of our sun, the planet actually cools because of a thickening crust, ebbing volcanism, thinning atmosphere and the interplay of geologic and life processes that lock up the very carbon upon which all life depends. Carbon dioxide is almost completely scavenged from the atmosphere and becomes a trace element.

Then we have millions of years of ice-depressed continents that are dry and cold where they are not crushed by ice mountains – thousands of centuries of ice which are periodically and briefly punctuated by interglacial warm periods. Then, at the very end of one of these brief moments in the sun, human civilization flowers and brings some of the precious carbon back into biospheric circulation, promising to mitigate the looming epochs of barren land and icy death.

We are then told that carbon is bad because of a few centimeters of sea level.

Sure, you are the smart ones. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[n0jaa]

I was going to print out this forum so I could read and study this off line. No, I don't think so! The first two forum pages amounted to 70 printed pages! NOT! I think I'll use Word instead.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[al2i]

Isn't it about time for a carbon-based life form to make a joke about those of us in the "carbon is good" crowd?

If you can joke about a counter-viewpoint, then your view must be the superior one. It's joke epistemology! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

[n0jaa]

Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Mar. 16 2007,14:23)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Mar. 16 2007,10:10)]First and foremost there is indeed a significant rise in both CO2 and temperature which has occurred over the past 150 years. #This is factual and directly measured and indisputable.
Define "significant," please.
Not being fascetious, just providing some clarification.


From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary...

Main Entry: sig·nif·i·cant
Pronunciation: -k&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin significant-, significans, present participle of significare to signify

1 : having meaning; especially : SUGGESTIVE <a significant glance>

2 a : having or likely to have influence or effect : IMPORTANT <a significant piece of legislation>; also : of a noticeably or measurably large amount <a significant number of layoffs> <producing significant profits> b : probably caused by something other than mere chance <statistically significant correlation between vitamin deficiency and disease>

[n0jaa]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Mar. 24 2007,13:45)]Isn't it about time for a carbon-based life form to make a joke about those of us in the "carbon is good" crowd? #

If you can joke about a counter-viewpoint, then your view must be the superior one. #It's joke epistemology! #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
I like carbonated soft drinks. Does that count?

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (n0jaa @ Mar. 24 2007,09:48)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Mar. 24 2007,13:45)]Isn't it about time for a carbon-based life form to make a joke about those of us in the "carbon is good" crowd?

If you can joke about a counter-viewpoint, then your view must be the superior one. It's joke epistemology! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
I like carbonated soft drinks. Does that count?
Yes. You are evilly contributing to a greenhouse gas and will likely burn in a man-made hell on Earth.

[G8ADD]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Mar. 24 2007,09:58)]Despite the slow billion year warming of our sun, the planet actually cools because of a thickening crust, ebbing volcanism, thinning atmosphere and the interplay of geologic and life processes that lock up the very carbon upon which all life depends. Carbon dioxide is almost completely scavenged from the atmosphere and becomes a trace element.

Then we have millions of years of ice-depressed continents that are dry and cold where they are not crushed by ice mountains – thousands of centuries of ice which are periodically and briefly punctuated by interglacial warm periods. Then, at the very end of one of these brief moments in the sun, human civilization flowers and brings some of the precious carbon back into biospheric circulation, promising to mitigate the looming epochs of barren land and icy death.

We are then told that carbon is bad because of a few centimeters of sea level.

Sure, you are the smart ones. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
A somewhat disingenuous contribution!

If all the ice melts sea level will go up by 70 metres. That's a lot of living space and food growing space lost!

73

Brian G8ADD

[n0jaa]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Mar. 24 2007,13:51)]Quote[/b] (n0jaa @ Mar. 24 2007,09:48)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Mar. 24 2007,13:45)]Isn't it about time for a carbon-based life form to make a joke about those of us in the "carbon is good" crowd? #

If you can joke about a counter-viewpoint, then your view must be the superior one. #It's joke epistemology! #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
I like carbonated soft drinks. #Does that count?
Yes. #You are evilly contributing to a greenhouse gas and will likely burn in a man-made hell on Earth.
Oh well. I suppose I'm condemned to a hell full of chocolate-flavored navel lint! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

I could always switch to Jamaican Rum! Maybe a rum-and-coke. Oops, forgot, can't have the coke.

[N5NPO]

Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ Mar. 24 2007,11:03)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Mar. 24 2007,09:58)]Despite the slow billion year warming of our sun, the planet actually cools because of a thickening crust, ebbing volcanism, thinning atmosphere and the interplay of geologic and life processes that lock up the very carbon upon which all life depends. #Carbon dioxide is almost completely scavenged from the atmosphere and becomes a trace element.

Then we have millions of years of ice-depressed continents that are dry and cold where they are not crushed by ice mountains – thousands of centuries of ice which are periodically and briefly punctuated by interglacial warm periods. #Then, at the very end of one of these brief moments in the sun, human civilization flowers and brings some of the precious carbon back into biospheric circulation, promising to mitigate the looming epochs of barren land and icy death. #

We are then told that carbon is bad because of a few centimeters of sea level.

Sure, you are the smart ones. # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
A somewhat disingenuous contribution!

If all the ice melts sea level will go up by 70 metres. That's a lot of living space and food growing space lost!

73

Brian G8ADD
Wait a minute, if ALL the ice melts, then much of Antartica would be available to use as well as Greenland, Siberia and Scandinavia. We cannot put Alaska on that list because of ANWAR.

[n0jaa]

If all of that ice melted, Alaska would be mostly flooded, except perhaps for Mount McKinley.

[G8ADD]

Quote[/b] (N5NPO @ Mar. 24 2007,11:14)]Wait a minute, if ALL the ice melts, then much of Antartica would be available to use as well as Greenland, Siberia and Scandinavia. We cannot put Alaska on that list because of ANWAR.
Much of Antarctica would be below sea level if the ice was removed. The same for Greenland if I remember correctly. Siberia has permafrost but no ice cap at present because precipitation is too low: I don't think there were glaciers over much of Siberia during the glaciations for the same reason. Much of Scandinavia is mountainous, a good bit of the rest would be submerged as the Baltic Sea expanded.

You would have to get friendly with the Canadians......a bit of a wrench for some of you!

73

Brian G8ADD

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ Mar. 24 2007,10:03)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Mar. 24 2007,09:58)]Despite the slow billion year warming of our sun, the planet actually cools because of a thickening crust, ebbing volcanism, thinning atmosphere and the interplay of geologic and life processes that lock up the very carbon upon which all life depends. Carbon dioxide is almost completely scavenged from the atmosphere and becomes a trace element.

Then we have millions of years of ice-depressed continents that are dry and cold where they are not crushed by ice mountains – thousands of centuries of ice which are periodically and briefly punctuated by interglacial warm periods. Then, at the very end of one of these brief moments in the sun, human civilization flowers and brings some of the precious carbon back into biospheric circulation, promising to mitigate the looming epochs of barren land and icy death.

We are then told that carbon is bad because of a few centimeters of sea level.

Sure, you are the smart ones. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
A somewhat disingenuous contribution!

If all the ice melts sea level will go up by 70 metres. That's a lot of living space and food growing space lost!

73

Brian G8ADD
Antarctica isn't melting anytime soon. To suggest that would be disingenuous.

I am worried about the results of the Arctic ocean ice opening up, because that will likely signal the beginning of a warmer Arctic for hundreds of years and a corresponding return to the ice age that we are briefly enjoying a reprieve from. The very ocean moisture that will keep the Arctic from radiating the Earth's heat may also bring the return of the pitiless ice that buries everything in its way.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Mar. 23 2007,23:17)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Mar. 23 2007,20:41)]Feyerabend rejected the ad hoc argument of Lakatos but if I remember correctly not on the same grounds as Popper who considered it scientifically invalid. At least that's what I recall but as I said it's been a while so I am a bit flaky at the moment.
Yes. Popper tried to formalize science along rigorous mathematical models and was a big believer in hypothesis falsification as an analog to proof by contradiction. Popper is probably more responsible for the myth of the scientific method than any other philosopher.

Lakatos understood Kuhn's thesis about scientific revolution but also realized that Kuhn, by looking at the history of quantum mechanics, was looking at a very unusual situation in science.

Taking a longer view of history than Kuhn did, Lakatos came up with the idea of "programmes" and the idea that research groups tend to form around a concept and milk the concept until it becomes a dead end.

Lakatos believed that Kuhnian revolutions occurred rarely and happened when a particular research group recognized that a programme was approaching a dead end. He thought the more common case was for one research group to continue up the dead end to irrelevance and eventually be replaced by a different research group with a different programme.

Lakatos took an evolutionary approach because he looked at a wider history of science than just the revolutionary period of physics.

Feyerabend rejected the ad hoc model of Lakatos because he took the view, expressed in Against Method that even Lakatos' programmes were more formal than science itself admits to.

Outside of physics it is very easy to see the sort of research programmes that Lakatos recognized, and his approach goes a long way towards explaining why some schools become noted for certain areas, like Carnegie Mellon and Robotics, or MIT and AI, and also explains why there tend to be competing camps, like the MIT and Stanford camps over AI, or the Stanford and Cambridge camps over linguistics.

Feyerabend went so far as to argue that no theory is ever meant to be complete and that no theory is ever consistent with all of the known observations.

One of his examples is the heliocentric model. He points out that the it is just as valid from the point of view of physics to say that the earth is the center of the universe and everything rotates around it as it is to say that the earth revolves around the sun. There is, after all, no privileged frame of reference, so it's just as valid to pick one as another. The "validity" of the heliocentric model, in Feyerabend's view, is its utility. It's simply easier to do the math if you adopt that convention than if you adopt the other.
Quote[/b] ]
Yes. Popper tried to formalize science along rigorous mathematical models and was a big believer in hypothesis falsification as an analog to proof by contradiction. Popper is probably more responsible for the myth of the scientific method than any other philosopher.


From what I recall Popper argued that falsification was a nessesary criteria for a scientific theory.A theory was "falseifiable" implied the theory is "scientific". The theory in question being one with no falsifiable statements within.

Quote[/b] ]
Taking a longer view of history than Kuhn did, Lakatos came up with the idea of "programmes" and the idea that research groups tend to form around a concept and milk the concept until it becomes a dead end.


One can argue that there are many examples of this all around us today. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif However I am not familiar with this specific idea as argued by Lakatos. That is something I need to spend some time reading.

Quote[/b] ]
Feyerabend rejected the ad hoc model of Lakatos because he took the view, expressed in Against Method that even Lakatos' programmes were more formal than science itself admits to.


One professor I had argued that according to Feyerabend the "rules and methodology of science is that there are no rules". Superficially it sounded chaotic but on delving further I could appreciate Feyerabends argument such as his rejection of Lakatos ad hoc model and his rejection of "a scientific method(s)". I always got the impression that Feyerabend was not opposed to "methods" per se but rather the dependence upon any specific method or group of methods as a fixed paradigm of science. However, I may be quite wrong on this or perhaps wording myself wrongly. I am indeed no prime authority of the philosophy of science.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Mar. 24 2007,12:56)]Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ Mar. 24 2007,10:03)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Mar. 24 2007,09:58)]Despite the slow billion year warming of our sun, the planet actually cools because of a thickening crust, ebbing volcanism, thinning atmosphere and the interplay of geologic and life processes that lock up the very carbon upon which all life depends. Carbon dioxide is almost completely scavenged from the atmosphere and becomes a trace element.

Then we have millions of years of ice-depressed continents that are dry and cold where they are not crushed by ice mountains – thousands of centuries of ice which are periodically and briefly punctuated by interglacial warm periods. Then, at the very end of one of these brief moments in the sun, human civilization flowers and brings some of the precious carbon back into biospheric circulation, promising to mitigate the looming epochs of barren land and icy death.

We are then told that carbon is bad because of a few centimeters of sea level.

Sure, you are the smart ones. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
A somewhat disingenuous contribution!

If all the ice melts sea level will go up by 70 metres. That's a lot of living space and food growing space lost!

73

Brian G8ADD
Antarctica isn't melting anytime soon. To suggest that would be disingenuous.

I am worried about the results of the Arctic ocean ice opening up, because that will likely signal the beginning of a warmer Arctic for hundreds of years and a corresponding return to the ice age that we are briefly enjoying a reprieve from. The very ocean moisture that will keep the Arctic from radiating the Earth's heat may also bring the return of the pitiless ice that buries everything in its way.
Most of us will probably be long dead before the next ice age comes and buries us. So I wouldn't worry about it too much. There aremany catastrophic events that can potentially make human life extremeny difficult or impossible. Many are microscopic.

In the more immediate future there is (or should be) a concern about the effects of man made global warming. Even with the exclusion of worst case scenarios the effects of even mild to moderate ocean level rise can translate into rather devastating affects upon the vast percentage of populations living in coastal regions as it translates into more frequent flooding and the related problems that go along with it.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Mar. 24 2007,11:59)]
From what I recall Popper argued that falsification was a nessesary criteria for a scientific theory.A theory was "falseifiable" implied the theory is "scientific". The theory in question being one with no falsifiable statements within.

Yes. The problem is that there's no good way to nail down what "falsifiable" means. Take my theory that there is no mitochrondial eve. It is a fine theory by Popper's standards, since it contains a falsifiable claim (that life requires DNA) but there's no biologist who will give that theory any serious thought.

Over time, falsifiable has been refined to testable, and the current thinking is that a theory must make a testable prediction with a different result than a competitive theory makes, but that even if the the test is performed it doesn't invalidate the entire theory, it merely points out a place where a possibly ad-hoc modification needs to be made.

Quote[/b] ]
One can argue that there are many examples of this all around us today. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif However I am not familiar with this specific idea as argued by Lakatos. That is something I need to spend some time reading.

I've never ran across a good summary of Lakatos on research programs. The canonical source is The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes: Philosophical Papers (Philosophical Papers Volume I)

[quote]I always got the impression that Feyerabend was not opposed to "methods" per se but rather the dependence upon any specific method or group of methods as a fixed paradigm of science. However, I may be quite wrong on this or perhaps wording myself wrongly. I am indeed no prime authority of the philosophy of science.

I think you're pretty close to the mark. Feyerabend stopped short of post-modernism with respect to science. He believed that science is what scientists do, and that scientists being human, use the entire range of human behavior.

This view is too extreme for the Kuhnians because it means there is no litmus test for determining whether a particular activity is scientific or not.

That's not a real shop stopper because the issue isn't whether the process is scientific, but rather whether the product is. That's where empirical pragmatism comes into play, which is the philosophy of science I subscribe to, and I believe Hawking and Feynman subscribe to, based on their writings. If a theory makes valid predictions the theory is empirical and I can ask no more of it than that. If the predictions are useful in the manipulation of the universe than it is a useful theory.

[G8ADD]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Mar. 24 2007,12:56)]Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ Mar. 24 2007,10:03)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Mar. 24 2007,09:58)]Despite the slow billion year warming of our sun, the planet actually cools because of a thickening crust, ebbing volcanism, thinning atmosphere and the interplay of geologic and life processes that lock up the very carbon upon which all life depends. Carbon dioxide is almost completely scavenged from the atmosphere and becomes a trace element.

Then we have millions of years of ice-depressed continents that are dry and cold where they are not crushed by ice mountains – thousands of centuries of ice which are periodically and briefly punctuated by interglacial warm periods. Then, at the very end of one of these brief moments in the sun, human civilization flowers and brings some of the precious carbon back into biospheric circulation, promising to mitigate the looming epochs of barren land and icy death.

We are then told that carbon is bad because of a few centimeters of sea level.

Sure, you are the smart ones. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
A somewhat disingenuous contribution!

If all the ice melts sea level will go up by 70 metres. That's a lot of living space and food growing space lost!

73

Brian G8ADD
Antarctica isn't melting anytime soon. To suggest that would be disingenuous.

I am worried about the results of the Arctic ocean ice opening up, because that will likely signal the beginning of a warmer Arctic for hundreds of years and a corresponding return to the ice age that we are briefly enjoying a reprieve from. The very ocean moisture that will keep the Arctic from radiating the Earth's heat may also bring the return of the pitiless ice that buries everything in its way.
No, I don't think Antarctica is going to melt, or most of the Greenland cap for that matter - it appears that most of the present sea level rise is due to the melting of mountain glaciers. However, if the more extreme forecasts of temperature rise are correct then all bets are off!

73

Brian G8ADD

[nz3m]

1.5 degree rise in "average" global temp since 1900. Most of that was in the first 30 years.

The earth is just doing it's thing. The next 100 years it may drop 1.5 degrees.

you are all whackos http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[KE5FRF]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Mar. 24 2007,12:51)]Quote[/b] (n0jaa @ Mar. 24 2007,09:48)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Mar. 24 2007,13:45)]Isn't it about time for a carbon-based life form to make a joke about those of us in the "carbon is good" crowd? #

If you can joke about a counter-viewpoint, then your view must be the superior one. #It's joke epistemology! #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
I like carbonated soft drinks. #Does that count?
Yes. #You are evilly contributing to a greenhouse gas and will likely burn in a man-made hell on Earth.
Do I earn carbon credits if I don't belch?

[KE5FRF]

Looks to me there are some overworked left hemispheres on this thread. Marty, John...you guys need to give those left hemispheres a rest and excercise your creative energies. I suggest poetry as a start. No, lymericks don't count.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ Mar. 24 2007,13:53)]Looks to me there are some overworked left hemispheres on this thread. Marty, John...you guys need to give those left hemispheres a rest and excercise your creative energies. I suggest poetry as a start. No, lymericks don't count.
It's ok if you can't follow the conversation, Heath; nobody really expected you to.

There once was a poster named Keith
Who kept his wits in a sheath.
His wits ran away.
And since that day,
contempt, poor Keith is beneath.

The meter's not quiet right for a Limrick, so I guess it counts as creative in your eyes.

Here's another one

There once was a Karl called Popper
Whose methods all came a cropper.
Scientific they're not.
He'd simply forgot
"whatever works" is always proper.

[KE5FRF]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Mar. 24 2007,18:01)]Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ Mar. 24 2007,13:53)]Looks to me there are some overworked left hemispheres on this thread. Marty, John...you guys need to give those left hemispheres a rest and excercise your creative energies. I suggest poetry as a start. No, lymericks don't count.
It's ok if you can't follow the conversation, Heath; nobody really expected you to.

There once was a poster named Keith
Who kept his wits in a sheath.
His wits ran away.
And since that day,
contempt, poor Keith is beneath.

The meter's not quiet right for a Limrick, so I guess it counts as creative in your eyes.

Here's another one

There once was a Karl called Popper
Whose methods all came a cropper.
Scientific they're not.
He'd simply forgot
"whatever works" is always proper.
Why, that would be downright offensive if my name was Keith.

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Mar. 24 2007,12:07)]Most of us will probably be long dead before the next ice age comes and buries us. So I wouldn't worry about it too much.
Well OM, the entire global warming excitement is targetting future generations, not ours, and based on the past couple of megayears, ice is the normal, not water. The current interglacial may end quite abruptly, and I feel the far greater risk is actually global cooling, not global warming.

Perhaps slash and burn agriculture, using peat moss for heating and cooking, and other things brought us out of the little ice age. Look at the chart on the link I've provided below, and you will see that man made global warming just may be the finest-ever contribution to the planet ever made by industrial civilization.

Was an Icy Death Avoided by Human Action? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age)

I have no mystical moral compass that points bad at all things human and good at all things non-human. Nature kills, oceans slowly fluctuate, and temperatures change. Adapting and adjusting without being killed by nature seems like a good idea. Sacrificing individual liberty to Statism and Gaianism as you would is evil, and must be fought by all who value human life and happiness.

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (AB3BK @ Mar. 24 2007,13:14)]1.5 degree rise in "average" global temp since 1900. Most of that was in the first 30 years.

The earth is just doing it's thing. The next 100 years it may drop 1.5 degrees.

you are all whackos http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Shhhhh! The patients are in therapy!

[KE5FRF]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Mar. 24 2007,20:28)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Mar. 24 2007,12:07)]Most of us #will probably be long dead before the next ice age comes and buries us. So I wouldn't worry about it too much.
Well OM, the entire global warming excitement is targetting future generations, not ours, and based on the past couple of megayears, ice is the normal, not water. #The current interglacial may end quite abruptly, and I feel the far greater risk is actually global cooling, not global warming.

Perhaps slash and burn agriculture, using peat moss for heating and cooking, and other things brought us out of the little ice age. #Look at the chart on the link I've provided below, and you will see that man made global warming just may be the finest-ever contribution to the planet ever made by industrial civilization. #

Was an Icy Death Avoided by Human Action? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age)

I have no mystical moral compass that points bad at all things human and good at all things non-human. #Nature kills, oceans slowly fluctuate, and temperatures change. #Adapting and adjusting without being killed by nature seems like a good idea. #Sacrificing individual liberty to Statism and Gaianism as you would is evil, and must be fought by all who value human life and happiness.
Dave, you are most certainly a smarter and wiser man than I, but might I suggest you let these two Icons of brainpower hammer out the truth, while you and I enjoy the lovely spring weather? Oh well, on second thought...I'll enjoy the spring weather, and you can enjoy whatever it is that Alaskans enjoy this time of year.

[N5NPO]

Quote[/b] (n0jaa @ Mar. 24 2007,11:28)]If all of that ice melted, Alaska would be mostly flooded, except perhaps for Mount McKinley.
Hi,
I did some math. Based on the water would rise 70 meters if all the Ice melted, that would be aproximately 234ft. My home here in south Alabama is at 260ft. I may have beachfront property!
You mean most of Alaska is below 234ft.?

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ Mar. 24 2007,18:31)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Mar. 24 2007,20:28)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Mar. 24 2007,12:07)]Most of us will probably be long dead before the next ice age comes and buries us. So I wouldn't worry about it too much.
Well OM, the entire global warming excitement is targetting future generations, not ours, and based on the past couple of megayears, ice is the normal, not water. The current interglacial may end quite abruptly, and I feel the far greater risk is actually global cooling, not global warming.

Perhaps slash and burn agriculture, using peat moss for heating and cooking, and other things brought us out of the little ice age. Look at the chart on the link I've provided below, and you will see that man made global warming just may be the finest-ever contribution to the planet ever made by industrial civilization.

Was an Icy Death Avoided by Human Action? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age)

I have no mystical moral compass that points bad at all things human and good at all things non-human. Nature kills, oceans slowly fluctuate, and temperatures change. Adapting and adjusting without being killed by nature seems like a good idea. Sacrificing individual liberty to Statism and Gaianism as you would is evil, and must be fought by all who value human life and happiness.
Dave, you are most certainly a smarter and wiser man than I, but might I suggest you let these two Icons of brainpower hammer out the truth, while you and I enjoy the lovely spring weather? Oh well, on second thought...I'll enjoy the spring weather, and you can enjoy whatever it is that Alaskans enjoy this time of year.
No, no, no OM Heath! You are vastly more intelligent than I. I am mere pond scum next to your glory, and frozen scum at that. Our mornings are currently running about -35F and our afternoons are about -25F. It is brilliant, and nearly calm. This afternoon, it was so bright out on the road, that even from within the cab of my truck and with my super-dark sunglasses on, my eyes were watering from the intense white, thin ice fog and the pearly white and ever-clean snow and frost that is always pure white in the arctic winter.

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (N5NPO @ Mar. 24 2007,18:54)]Quote[/b] (n0jaa @ Mar. 24 2007,11:28)]If all of that ice melted, Alaska would be mostly flooded, except perhaps for Mount McKinley.
Hi,
I did some math. Based on the water would rise 70 meters if all the Ice melted, that would be aproximately 234ft. My home here in south Alabama is at 260ft. I may have beachfront property!
You mean most of Alaska is below 234ft.?
The parts of Alaska that were not covered by ice thousands of feet thick were probably dry, cold, and relatively barren places for most of the last couple of million years. The Bering Sea was mostly land though, so you could say that Alaska is flooded right now.

http://www.davemcgraw.com/Images/blb_anim.gif

[N5NPO]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Mar. 24 2007,20:09)]Quote[/b] (N5NPO @ Mar. 24 2007,18:54)]Quote[/b] (n0jaa @ Mar. 24 2007,11:28)]If all of that ice melted, Alaska would be mostly flooded, except perhaps for Mount McKinley.
Hi,
I did some math. Based on the water would rise 70 meters if all the Ice melted, that would be aproximately 234ft. My home here in south Alabama is at 260ft. I may have beachfront property!
You mean most of Alaska is below 234ft.?
The parts of Alaska that were not covered by ice thousands of feet thick were probably dry, cold, and relatively barren places for most of the last couple of million years. #The Bering Sea was mostly land though, so you could say that Alaska is flooded right now.

http://www.davemcgraw.com/Images/blb_anim.gif
You mean the process has already started!?!?!?

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Mar. 24 2007,18:28)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Mar. 24 2007,12:07)]Most of us #will probably be long dead before the next ice age comes and buries us. So I wouldn't worry about it too much.
Well OM, the entire global warming excitement is targetting future generations, not ours, and based on the past couple of megayears, ice is the normal, not water. #The current interglacial may end quite abruptly, and I feel the far greater risk is actually global cooling, not global warming.

Perhaps slash and burn agriculture, using peat moss for heating and cooking, and other things brought us out of the little ice age. #Look at the chart on the link I've provided below, and you will see that man made global warming just may be the finest-ever contribution to the planet ever made by industrial civilization. #

Was an Icy Death Avoided by Human Action? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age)

I have no mystical moral compass that points bad at all things human and good at all things non-human. #Nature kills, oceans slowly fluctuate, and temperatures change. #Adapting and adjusting without being killed by nature seems like a good idea. #Sacrificing individual liberty to Statism and Gaianism as you would is evil, and must be fought by all who value human life and happiness.
Quote[/b] ]
Well OM, the entire global warming excitement is targetting future generations, not ours, and based on the past couple of megayears, ice is the normal, not water. #The current interglacial may end quite abruptly, and I feel the far greater risk is actually global cooling, not global warming.


You could be right but present day science tells us otherwise. This is not to say that there won't be an ice age but presently we see a notable and significant warming trend which has enough significant dissimilarities to distinguish itself from anything that happened before and our present conclusing is that man made causes are playing a significant role and the present warming we are seeing today is likely to continue. In light of that argument we need to consider the potential effects this warming trend can present which could be significant enough to cause rather disruptive changes.

Additionally it's hard to conclude that the ending of the LIA is entirely due to MMGW and even if it was can we conclude that continued MMGW would be beneficial in the long term ?

Bear in mind that the LIA is not longer believed to be a global phenomenon as was once thought and, the Medievel Warm period is believed to have been regional as well.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Mar. 24 2007,17:28)]I have no mystical moral compass that points bad at all things human and good at all things non-human.
I've never encountered such a creature either.

I do believe there's an intermediate ground between personal selfishness and "stateism" though, and when humans cause problems for humans that's the ground to stand on: finding the way that hurts the least and helps the most, as a matter of cooperations.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (N5NPO @ Mar. 24 2007,18:54)]You mean most of Alaska is below 234ft.?
A large amount is, yes, although I wouldn't say "most". While some of Alaska is very mountainous, other parts are very open tundra and taiga Looking at this map (http://www.netstate.com/states/geography/mapcom/ak_mapscom.htm) suggests that maybe 25-30% is.

[KE5FRF]

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Mar. 25 2007,00:32)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Mar. 24 2007,17:28)]I have no mystical moral compass that points bad at all things human and good at all things non-human.
I've never encountered such a creature either.

I do believe there's an intermediate ground between personal selfishness and "stateism" though, and when humans cause problems for humans that's the ground to stand on: finding the way that hurts the least and helps the most, as a matter of cooperations.
Go to a PETA rally, you'll meet meet some.

[N5NPO]

Well, if all the ice did melt, would the mean earth temperature also fall to some kind of intermediate level between the temperature it took to cause the ice to become ice and what it took to melt said ice?
When G8ADD said all the ice, did he mean ALL THE ICE, including the tops of mountians and such everywhere?

[N1LAF]

Since the 1500 year cycle has the potential to invalidate the "man did it" theory, there is a group that are actively tryin