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.
Until you understand the global warming theory, all else is futile, it's just wasting time and energy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
All theories are fundamentally simple.
You couldn't be more wrong. Here is evidence to show you why you are wrong. Here is some more. You obviously don't actually know much about this matter, and evidence is probably the last thing that will change your mind. Even so
Quote:
Heisenberg, in constructing quantum mechanics, explicitly followed certain
principles exemplified, as he believed, in Einstein's construction of the special
theory of relativity which for him was the paradigm for radical theoretic change in
physics. These were the principles of (i) scientific realism, (ii) stability of
background knowledge, (iii) E-observability, (iv) contextual re-interpretation, (v)
pragmatic continuity, (vi) model continuity, simplicity. Fifty years later, in
retrospect, Heisenberg added the following two: a principle of non-proliferation of
competing theories — scientific revolutions are not a legitimate goal of physics —
and (ix) a principle of tenacity — existing theories are to be conserved as far as
possible.
Einstein, Heisenberg and Schroedinger might consider their theories simple, but when they say it it has a different meaning that what you are claiming.
Quote:
The list of principles of rational theory change would be incomplete without
mention of the properties of simplicity and beauty. It is a common view of
scientists shared by both Einstein and Heisenberg, that all theories are simple
and beautiful that truly mirror Nature. But what is simplicity? How do we judge
the beauty of a scientific theory? To formulate criteria for these is as difficult as it
is to say why one art object hits it off and another does not. Einstein intended one
thing by these terms; Heisenberg apparently intended something else, and
Schroedinger something different again. All we can say with certainty is that each
claimed to be able to recognize simplicity and beauty and that nevertheless they
disagreed profoundly in their concrete judgments about particular theories; for
example, about Heisenberg's Matrix Mechanics. However, the fact of
disagreement does not imply that criteria do not exist, only that there are
different sensibilities, different "esthetic" styles in science as in art. Criteria of
this kind belong to the transcendental (or non-objective) conditions of possibility
of theoretical scientific rationality. Whether or not these conditions are fixed is a
matter for dispute.
What you state as "theory" is not anything that can be called a scientific theory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
Gravity says anything with mass is attracted to anything else with mass. Likewise anthropogenic climate changes simply says human activity has increased greenhouse effect.
No, neither of those are a theory, nor do they even meet the criteria of a hypothesis. In the language of science, the word "theory" is used to describe an explanation of why and how things happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
The body of evidence that supports either of those statements is HUGE. People have spent their entire careers studying just small pieces of each. Thousands of people for hundreds of years in the case of gravity, and 50+ years in the case of ACC.
You started off with a false claim, then insist there is a huge amount of evidence for the false claim. This is the sort of thing the OP is talking about. (this does not mean I endorse the OP) It's just nonsense, it has no meaning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
And yes, that is science.
No, it's not even close.
This is why with out explaining the theory, all else is just futility. Be it politics or science, if you can't define and describe what you are arguing about, their is no argumen.
For example, in regards to Gravity, the Law of gravity is as follows.
"Every point mass attracts every single point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses."
The theory of gravity is contained in Einstein's general theory of relativity, which explains gravity as a distortion of space (or more precisely, spacetime) caused by the presence of matter or energy. A massive object generates a gravitational field by warping the geometry of the surrounding spacetime. And so on ...
It is considered a valid theory based on evidence, like observing spacetime bending. When people were arguing against his theory, they were not saying their was no gravity. They were arguing against his ideas of "why" their was gravity, and how it works.
Basic global warming theory is not the same thing as the absorption spectrum of CO2, nor is it simply as you claimed.
This is why all the political and emotional arguing is a waste of time. If you don't understand what you are arguing about, then what the hell?
In science, a hypothesis is either a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon, or a reasoned prediction of a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. In science, a theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven factors. A theory is always backed by evidence; a hypothesis is only a suggested possible outcome, and is testable and falsifiable.
A theory will contain many things, all of which are by themselves considered real and true, principles, laws, formulas, observations, other theories and so forth. For example, that CO2 exists, it exists in our atmosphere, it has an absorption spectrum, it has varied in the past, and it is currently increasing, these are all considered factual things, and are included in the CO2 theory (basic global warming theory).
The CO theory of climate change is at the heart of the matter, yet almost nobody knows what it means. Hell, some people claim it doesn't even exist. You certainly won't find it on Wikipedia.
No, the scientific method that elevates a hypothesis (guess) to a theory is dependent on that one verifiable data point that falsifies the hypothesis. How do you not know that? Are you, too, not a real scientist?
No to what? I'm not following this. Besides the fact that a hypothesis does not turn into a theory, all of it is dependent on peer review. Do you understand what I mean by that? Even the dissenters entirely rely on published research so they can dissent in the first place. If there is no research, no body of knowledge, there is nothing to dissent from in 2017 or to build upon. That is dependent on peer review and peer review largely removes the validity of the conspiracy theory.
Well, all I mean is that it's unlikely that it will turn on it's head. I did not mean to imply that it's not falsifiable if that's what you are getting at. Of course anything is always possible, but it's not likely. There is a lot of science where we don't sit around on the edges of our seat, biting nails, thinking it could all be wrong. Enough, established evidence allows us to build upon it with confidence. So, perhaps it's better if I said we are confident in the science (in this case the science leading to the scientific consensus that we are contributing to climate change).
Here is a great link for you to read which covers this topic. It is a 9 part article that will assist you in understanding things like the consensus as well as how the "science" of AGW (CAGW) is being laid out. It is a great primer without all the name calling and emotional back and forth.
I hope you take a little time and read through all 9 parts as it is very informative.
Until you understand the global warming theory, all else is futile, it's just wasting time and energy. You couldn't be more wrong. Here is evidence to show you why you are wrong. Here is some more. You obviously don't actually know much about this matter, and evidence is probably the last thing that will change your mind. Even so
Einstein, Heisenberg and Schroedinger might consider their theories simple, but when they say it it has a different meaning that what you are claiming.
Wow, you can cut and paste like a champ! Good for you. Jargon from our fields, do not change the simplistic nature of theories, they are just explanations. No more no less. And scientists are trained (myself included) to use the jargon as it implies specificity that we in particular understand. But that does not make any part of what I said wrong. Gravity IS the attraction of masses. ACC is the change in greenhouse effect due to human activity.
BTW, an appeal to authority, is still a logical fallacy.
Quote:
What you state as "theory" is not anything that can be called a scientific theory.
No, neither of those are a theory, nor do they even meet the criteria of a hypothesis. In the language of science, the word "theory" is used to describe an explanation of why and how things happen.
You started off with a false claim, then insist there is a huge amount of evidence for the false claim. This is the sort of thing the OP is talking about. (this does not mean I endorse the OP) It's just nonsense, it has no meaning.
No, it's not even close.
You seem to be operating the common delusion that a hypothesis becomes a theory. A theory is an explanation, that has a body of evidence supporting it, is falsifiable and makes predictions. Both of those very simplistic statement I made, do all three and therefore are in fact simple summations of theories. Yes, theories are huge, they encompass massive amounts of information, but at their core is a simple explanation. A simple explanation supported by many observations, tested predictions and much revision. That is not true of a hypothesis. Hypothesis in fact are just prediction, and offer no explanation in an of themselves.
Quote:
This is why with out explaining the theory, all else is just futility. Be it politics or science, if you can't define and describe what you are arguing about, their is no argumen.
For example, in regards to Gravity, the Law of gravity is as follows.
"Every point mass attracts every single point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses."
No the last sentence is a law, and is not the theory. Laws, theories and hypothesis are distinct. A law is a mathematical relationship, that is universal or nearly so (as is the case for gravity). Technically only the bolded is the theory, because the second half of that statement, which was written by Newton. Has been surplanted by general relativity and our understanding of space time. In fact, that is an excellent examples of REVISION.
Quote:
The theory of gravity is contained in Einstein's general theory of relativity, which explains gravity as a distortion of space (or more precisely, spacetime) caused by the presence of matter or energy. A massive object generates a gravitational field by warping the geometry of the surrounding spacetime. And so on ...
Thanks. I have a graduate degree in a multidisciplinary field and have taken graduate course in multiple physics classes. I am good on the physics. but your cut and pastes are useful for pointing out why the simple explanations, like the ones I used, are still correct. Apparently you are unaware but parts of your cut and pastes, contradict. For example, Newtons point on a line do not work with Einsteins bending. Yet, the simple explanation still works with both.
Quote:
It is considered a valid theory based on evidence, like observing spacetime bending. When people were arguing against his theory, they were not saying their was no gravity. They were arguing against his ideas of "why" their was gravity, and how it works.
Basic global warming theory is not the same thing as the absorption spectrum of CO2, nor is it simply as you claimed.
This is why all the political and emotional arguing is a waste of time. If you don't understand what you are arguing about, then what the hell?
I am an oceanographer, I conduct research related to climate change. I am keeping my "arguments" simplistic due to the nature of the forum. If you would like to compare notes about something actually on a level of published research in the climate sciences, we can do so. Would you like to discuss, the issues of the depth of CCD/lysocline, dissolution related to aragonite vs calcite, and the implication of both with regard to modeling the buffering system of the Paleozoic compared to the Cenozoic and the current forcing? Just a little something we have been working on in our lab.
Here is a great link for you to read which covers this topic. It is a 9 part article that will assist you in understanding things like the consensus as well as how the "science" of AGW (CAGW) is being laid out. It is a great primer without all the name calling and emotional back and forth.
I hope you take a little time and read through all 9 parts as it is very informative.
That's the 5th or 6th blog that has been linked in this thread so far and they never pan out. On the first page of this blog you have this guy arguing with people in the comments section. Let's leave the fray. Why not just link the published research you're interested in discussing? That would be far easier.
I am an oceanographer, I conduct research related to climate change. I am keeping my "arguments" simplistic due to the nature of the forum. If you would like to compare notes about something actually on a level of published research in the climate sciences, we can do so. Would you like to discuss, the issues of the depth of CCD/lysocline, dissolution related to aragonite vs calcite, and the implication of both with regard to modeling the buffering system of the Paleozoic compared to the Cenozoic and the current forcing? Just a little something we have been working on in our lab.
Yes, I think it's time we put up or shut up.
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.
