Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A bunch of empty rhetoric by Massie. His mechanical engineering degree from MIT does not make him an expert on climate change in any way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Enlightenment
This is laughable. Massie, with his smirk, asking "how did it get to 2000 ppm if we humans weren't here?" hardly appears intelligent. The guy's a buffoon.
It's a valid question. Why does it frighten you?
Let's see what science says:
The globally averaged MIS-11 sea level is estimated to have reached between 6–13 m above that of today. With only a small contribution from thermal expansion of the ocean, this implies that significant parts of either or both the Greenland ice sheet (GrIS) and the West Antarctic ice sheet disappeared during this time.
“Even though the warm Eemian period was a period when the oceans were four to eight meters higher than today, the ice sheet in northwest Greenland was only a few hundred meters lower than the current level, which indicates that the contribution from the Greenland ice sheet was less than half the total sea-level rise during that period,” says Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Professor at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, and leader of the NEEM-project.
Thermoluminescence (TL) and electron spin resonance (ESR) ages from sediments and fossil shells point to an age of ∼220 ka for the end of this marine transgression, thus correlating it to MIS 7 (substage 7e). Altimetric data point to a maximum amplitude of about 10 meters above present-day mean sea-level, but tectonic processes may be involved.
You have sea level rise, even when CO2 levels are 260 ppm CO2.
Any claim that humans are causing sea level rise is an outrageous lie not based on scientific facts intended to push a political and social agenda.
Any claim that sea levels should not rise is an outrageous lie not based on scientific facts intended to push a political and social agenda.
Any claim that increased CO2 levels will cause sea level rise is an outrageous lie not based on scientific facts intended to push a political and social agenda.
Any claim that reducing CO2 levels will stop or prevent sea level rise is an outrageous lie not based on scientific facts intended to push a political and social agenda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
I do not think AGW is real, however, I applaud examination and further research into anything that effects the climate. However, we must understand-
1. there is no such thing as settled science
2. even gravity and evolution are still considered "theories"
3. once we suspend study and research into a topic, we will fail to progress as mankind- what if it was "settled" that the sun revolved around the earth?
4. vilifying or condemning those who question a hypothesis as "deniers" is anti-academic and harkens to actions of political extremists
5. until the "null hypothesis" is refuted, an assertion should not be considered valid
6. there is no other area of science that is politicized - such a position only hampers valid science
7. valid hypotheses should not require manipulation or massaging of data
8. acting upon an unproven hypothesis can result in catastrophic damage
Those are excellent points.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo58
I differ slightly on the null hypothesis. In fact, it can never be truly refuted.
If it's truly science it can.
The difference between science and a pseudo-science like "climate science" is accuracy and universality.
"Climate science" might be base on science, but it is not science, it's just conjecture and speculation, using models that are highly conjectural and speculative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry
How hard is it to understand that climate change is garbage since we have proof elevated CO2 levels existed in much higher content long ago AND it didn't bring down the living back then.
More insulting than that, far lower CO2 levels still result in ice sheets melting and sea level rise.
Well, finally some things that you and I can agree on. I agree; no such thing as settled science. I also have been frustrated by people who say things like "Evolution? That's just a theory", not understanding that any theory will always remain a theory, no matter how much evidence is found to support it.
I differ slightly on the null hypothesis. In fact, it can never be truly refuted. Some use p= .05 or p=.01 to reject Ho, but there always remains a non-zero probability that Ho is true. So you just have to decide what level of confidence you will accept. The test is also flawed in that it assumes a normal distribution of the data. Any calculation based on standard deviation is flawed if the data is not normal. Finally, statistical significance does not equate to practical significance. We can prove that a cancer drug extends life by an average of 2 months, but we can't prove that it is worth the cost and side effects.
Like you, I am dismayed that climate science has become so politicized. Most people in this forum, with little science background, will support AGW is they are liberal or call it a hoax if they are conservative, with neither side offering a rational basis for their belief. That is exactly why I have said that we should leave it to the scientists who are actually trained and experienced in climatology, atmospheric physics or meteorology.
I have absolutely no problem with scientists in those fields debating the issue, bringing forth objections and thoroughly testing any hypothesis. I am just frustrated with laymen on this and other forums who spout their uninformed opinions. And face it Hawkeye, when it comes to climate science, you and I, a physician and a biochemist, are laymen.
I agree completely with what you have said.
I do agree that the null hypothesis can NEVER be completely refuted, but, as you pointed out, within a p<.05. That is the "standard" for acceptance of a hypothesis being more likely true than not and the goal of any studies.
I think this is what everyone wants- a hypothesis to be evaluated with the same attention, rules, and scrutiny as any other hypothesis. So far, we have models and inconclusive information, particularly due to a "small sample size".
Only with further scrutiny and examination will this question be answered to the satisfaction of objective scientific criterion. Thus, the "settled science" should be discarded, as only further study will sufficiently answer the question.
I fully believe in the hypothesis of gravity and evolution- but they are not "settled", thus active research still in these areas. Gravity still has not been fully defined, but appears to be an electromagnetic property ("the force be with you").
This stuff is annoying, not frightening. Nobody who knows anything about the topic thinks that humans are the only thing that can cause, or ever has ever caused, a rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Massie's zinger only hits his own lame straw man.
But this time its different and we should listen to him
The constant failed predictions are proof that their climate models are all wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Enlightenment
Frighten?
It's a dumb question and yours is dumber still.
It's not dumb, and everyone can see you're totally frightened.
The science frightens you even more.
The science proves irrefutably that sea levels always rise 3 meters to 10 meters during an Inter-Glacial Period.
So, whether CO2 levels are 260 ppm, 280 ppm, 290 ppm, 350 ppm, 450 ppm or 800 ppm, the sea levels are going to rise another 3 meters to 10 meters and there ain't a damn thing anyone can do about it.
You people would have us waste $TRILLIONs, wreck economies and destroy people's lives and then spend $TRILLIONs more dealing with sea level rise that you had no hope of preventing in the first place.
Common sense dictates that we do nothing, and deal with the inevitable sea rise as it happens.
If you can guarantee with absolute certainty that CO2 levels of 260 ppm CO2 will not cause sea levels to rise another 3 meters to 10 meters, then do it.
The problem is, sea levels still rose even when CO2 levels were 260 ppm CO2, so you're going to have a difficult time, especially since climate science is not science.
The constant failed predictions are proof that their climate models are all wrong.
It's not dumb, and everyone can see you're totally frightened.
The science frightens you even more.
The science proves irrefutably that sea levels always rise 3 meters to 10 meters during an Inter-Glacial Period.
So, whether CO2 levels are 260 ppm, 280 ppm, 290 ppm, 350 ppm, 450 ppm or 800 ppm, the sea levels are going to rise another 3 meters to 10 meters and there ain't a damn thing anyone can do about it.
You people would have us waste $TRILLIONs, wreck economies and destroy people's lives and then spend $TRILLIONs more dealing with sea level rise that you had no hope of preventing in the first place.
Common sense dictates that we do nothing, and deal with the inevitable sea rise as it happens.
If you can guarantee with absolute certainty that CO2 levels of 260 ppm CO2 will not cause sea levels to rise another 3 meters to 10 meters, then do it.
The problem is, sea levels still rose even when CO2 levels were 260 ppm CO2, so you're going to have a difficult time, especially since climate science is not science.
Otherwise, go sit in a corner and sulk.
Agreed- the left in no way shape or form wants to pay $5 billion to cure a problem we no for sure is happening- illegal immigration.
In contrast, they are fine with blowing trillions of dollars on a "problem" which may not even be a problem.
The immediate "correlation = causation" is academically disingenuous and defies the scientific method. Before embarking on "remedies" which could cost economies trillions of dollars and cause irreparable harm to the environment, let's make sure that we are 100% certain of a certain entity causing a perceived problem.
The decline in the magnetic field is a very interesting (and readily measured phenomenon) which could cause "warming" independent of any CO2 levels. We know that earth's magnetic field is declining in strength and that we have very low levels of solar activity. These HUGE causes of climate change are simply ignored and swept under the rug!
I do agree that the null hypothesis can NEVER be completely refuted, but, as you pointed out, within a p<.05. That is the "standard" for acceptance of a hypothesis being more likely true than not and the goal of any studies.
I think this is what everyone wants- a hypothesis to be evaluated with the same attention, rules, and scrutiny as any other hypothesis. So far, we have models and inconclusive information, particularly due to a "small sample size".
Only with further scrutiny and examination will this question be answered to the satisfaction of objective scientific criterion. Thus, the "settled science" should be discarded, as only further study will sufficiently answer the question.
I fully believe in the hypothesis of gravity and evolution- but they are not "settled", thus active research still in these areas. Gravity still has not been fully defined, but appears to be an electromagnetic property ("the force be with you").
Well................ that is true. No one knows exactly how gravity functions, but is considered to be due to the curvature in space-time. The Star Wars "the force" is, of course, a creation of Hollywood, but the true forces of physics are inter-related.
Even though we experience gravity every moment of our lives, it is still a theory and an area of intense research (as all valid scientific theories are- no such thing as "settled science").
The AGW crowd neglects every other potential source of "warming" and focuses only on CO2, which is careless and academically disingenuous. They have completely neglected the fact that the earth's magnetic field is weakening which can lead not only to increased temps, but rises in CO2. Of course, we can't do anything about the earth's magnetic field, so it is not an attractive political target, as there is no transfer of wealth or taxation that can occur as a result of it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
