4 ms·

Sorry, but if you think that AGW and General Relativity are statements of similar stature, you need to learn more physics. General Relativity could not be deriv

by lutorm 17y ago

Sorry, but if you think that AGW and General Relativity are statements of similar stature, you need to learn more physics. General Relativity could not be derived from the prevailing paradigm at the time (Newtonian physics). It was a completely new framework proposed to explain certain observations that could not be explained in Newtonian physics. In contrast, AGW was not proposed to explain any observation. It was derived from accepted physics. Not that I ever said that you don't need to subject either to tests. You absolutely do. But if you think you can "prove" a scientific theory, I think it is you who is showing a profound misunderstanding of the scientific method. You can never prove a scientific theory, you can only disprove it. You can confirm a theory a million times but that does not imply that it will work the next time. It does however give us some amount of confidence that it will. My point is that as far as scientific statements go, that AGW happens is like saying "I think the ball will fall", while to say that it doesn't happen is to say "I think the ball will fall, but imperceptibly slowly.". Both should be tested, but given that one agrees with known physics and one does not, I think the latter should be viewed with more suspicion. But maybe that's just me.

CWuestefeld 17y ago
You can never prove a scientific theory, you can only disprove it. You can confirm a theory a million times but that does not imply that it will work the next time. It does however give us some amount of confidence that it will. Your definition of "prove" is too narrow. From my online WordWeb dictionary: Verb: prove (proved,proven) 1. Be shown or be found to be 2. Establish the validity of something, as by an example, explanation or experiment 3. Provide evidence for 4. Prove formally; demonstrate by a mathematical, formal proof 5. Put to the test, as for its quality, or give experimental use to ...etc... Many senses of this word relate to subjecting something to a test, rather than proof in the mathematical sense.
yummyfajitas 17y ago
AGW is the claim that human emission of CO2 (rather than other causes) has caused most of the warming trend that the earth has seen since the industrial revolution. Please explain how to derive this conclusion from accepted physics.
- Retric 17y ago
  That is not an accurate assessment of AGW. The current thinking basically balances an increase in particulate emissions which over the short term reduce global temperature average with greenhouse gasses which increase global temperature (plus a host of other factors). The fact that CO2 is extremely stable means than it accumulates in the atmosphere so its effects accumulate over time. Several other greenhouse gasses are modeled including water and methane, but their long term impact is reduced with time. Now the long term stability of CO2 vs. methane is based on simple chemistry, and water rains. As to why CO2 would increase the greenhouse effect see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_spectrum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_spectrum and its overall concentration in the atmosphere. PS: Looking back in history the accumulation effect of CO2 works in reverse so other man made impacts could have easily dominated it.
  - yummyfajitas 17y ago
    AGW is the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming. Anthropogenic means "caused by humans". What you described is basic radiation transfer and mass balance.
    - Retric 17y ago
      Well if you accept the physics of increasing CO2 in the air. Then you need to look at the chemistry of burning the gigantic quantities of mostly solid carbon in Coal C + O2 in the air => an even larger quantity of CO2 by volume in the air. Some basic math on the mass of Carbon released from Coal + Hydrocarbons (which mostly end up as CO2 and H20 after complete combustion) you find that tracks with the increase of CO2 in the air. Like most complex scientific theories there are several steps of logic involved. And while a few groups agree on which specific steps break the chain a slightly larger but still small group of people can agree that it's broken.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
InclinedPlane 17y ago
The theory of AGW is based on climate modelling. Climate modelling is a brand new science with a very short heritage and very little experimental verification. It is silly to say that climate modelling is derived from "accepted principles", as if it were borne from first principles. All modern climate "models" are horrible hacks. All contain one or more empirically determined "fudge factors". All gloss over numerous critical important elements of climate dynamics (such as clouds) because they are too difficult to model currently, or we lack understanding of their mechanisms. The idea that anyone anywhere on Earth has some pristine from-first-principles climate model that you can input data into, turn some crank and spit out data on the climate of the future with any degree of certainty is just plain wrong. Nobody has an accurate model of climate. The AGW proponents have been claiming that they have created accurate climate models (to a degree), but the evidence to back that up is extremely thin. And, what's more, we've discovered recently that the evidence is even thinner than we thought it was. This is why people object so much to the AGW doomsayers, because the evidence is very much lacking. At best, at best, there's a tiny window of a few decades where some models of climate show a similar trend in global average temperature to the actual trend. And on this tiniest thread of "evidence" so the entire catastrophic AGW theory and all of its proscriptives on human behavior and industry hangs.

by lutorm 17y ago

CWuestefeld 17y ago

You can never prove a scientific theory, you can only disprove it. You can confirm a theory a million times but that does not imply that it will work the next time. It does however give us some amount of confidence that it will. Your definition of "prove" is too narrow. From my online WordWeb dictionary: Verb: prove (proved,proven) 1. Be shown or be found to be 2. Establish the validity of something, as by an example, explanation or experiment 3. Provide evidence for 4. Prove formally; demonstrate by a mathematical, formal proof 5. Put to the test, as for its quality, or give experimental use to ...etc... Many senses of this word relate to subjecting something to a test, rather than proof in the mathematical sense.

yummyfajitas 17y ago

AGW is the claim that human emission of CO2 (rather than other causes) has caused most of the warming trend that the earth has seen since the industrial revolution. Please explain how to derive this conclusion from accepted physics.

Retric 17y ago
That is not an accurate assessment of AGW. The current thinking basically balances an increase in particulate emissions which over the short term reduce global temperature average with greenhouse gasses which increase global temperature (plus a host of other factors). The fact that CO2 is extremely stable means than it accumulates in the atmosphere so its effects accumulate over time. Several other greenhouse gasses are modeled including water and methane, but their long term impact is reduced with time. Now the long term stability of CO2 vs. methane is based on simple chemistry, and water rains. As to why CO2 would increase the greenhouse effect see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_spectrum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_spectrum and its overall concentration in the atmosphere. PS: Looking back in history the accumulation effect of CO2 works in reverse so other man made impacts could have easily dominated it.
- yummyfajitas 17y ago
  AGW is the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming. Anthropogenic means "caused by humans". What you described is basic radiation transfer and mass balance.
  - Retric 17y ago
    Well if you accept the physics of increasing CO2 in the air. Then you need to look at the chemistry of burning the gigantic quantities of mostly solid carbon in Coal C + O2 in the air => an even larger quantity of CO2 by volume in the air. Some basic math on the mass of Carbon released from Coal + Hydrocarbons (which mostly end up as CO2 and H20 after complete combustion) you find that tracks with the increase of CO2 in the air. Like most complex scientific theories there are several steps of logic involved. And while a few groups agree on which specific steps break the chain a slightly larger but still small group of people can agree that it's broken.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

InclinedPlane 17y ago

The theory of AGW is based on climate modelling. Climate modelling is a brand new science with a very short heritage and very little experimental verification. It is silly to say that climate modelling is derived from "accepted principles", as if it were borne from first principles. All modern climate "models" are horrible hacks. All contain one or more empirically determined "fudge factors". All gloss over numerous critical important elements of climate dynamics (such as clouds) because they are too difficult to model currently, or we lack understanding of their mechanisms. The idea that anyone anywhere on Earth has some pristine from-first-principles climate model that you can input data into, turn some crank and spit out data on the climate of the future with any degree of certainty is just plain wrong. Nobody has an accurate model of climate. The AGW proponents have been claiming that they have created accurate climate models (to a degree), but the evidence to back that up is extremely thin. And, what's more, we've discovered recently that the evidence is even thinner than we thought it was. This is why people object so much to the AGW doomsayers, because the evidence is very much lacking. At best, at best, there's a tiny window of a few decades where some models of climate show a similar trend in global average temperature to the actual trend. And on this tiniest thread of "evidence" so the entire catastrophic AGW theory and all of its proscriptives on human behavior and industry hangs.