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.
This is a fallacy that needs to be corrected. Just because something is peer reviewed does not make that theory not subject to scientific scrutiny via the scientific method. It doesn't matter if only a single dissenter throws a monkey wrench into a supposed scientific theory, if their claims are verifiable, the original scientific theory cannot hold to scrutiny via the scientific method. That is science.
Science is ever evolving as we, humans, learn more and more via observation, theory, validation and withstanding all countering observation theory and validation. Science, as humans understand it, is an ever moving target. Human knowledge is only in its infancy when it comes to science and even in the very "Laws" of physics. To presume humans "know" something as fact with regard to science is fool-hearty at best. What we do know is that we don't know much of what we can know. The past 100 years is a perfect example because we've learned much during that time, though most of what we've learned is nothing compared to what humans will learn in the future.
Theories are not the product on one paper. Theories do not rise and fall on a paper, hypotheses do. Theories are revised if parts of them are no longer supported but when Einstein proposed relativity did we throw out Newtons theory on gravity? No it was revised.
Peer review is not what turns a hypothesis into a theory. That isn't how this works.
I'm not a climate scientist so I cannot speak to it directly, but I have a hard time understanding how all the research is built solely on models- models that work or don't work. I use models in my work, but it's an accessory to the data- to the data integration and interpretation. Furthe, I would assume there are multiple modeling techniques used along a course that vary too greatly in application and scope to fit this rather generalized statement. With that said, perhaps it's easy enough to tease out. Are the models used referenced in the thousands of publications?
As far as what I believe to be true- I have not studied the science in any meaningful depth so I cannot have a well informed opinion. I have to rely on the scientists.
The answer to this is, Yes. Climate models are the main source climate scientists are relying upon as a verification method. As each model matures, the actual results do not match the modeled results in each and every case. The fact that these models (hypotheses or guesses, if you will) don't match what can actually be measured causes the entire initial hypothesis or at least the contributing factors cited in that hypothesis to be questioned.
IIRC I have read that it is a range between something like 2 and 6% annually. And I am currently on my phone and don't feel like looking it up so I could be wrong on that.
So, the question becomes -
What happens when you increase the input side of a system that is in relative equilibrium by 2-6%?
If I have a bucket with a hole in it that drains a liter per minute and a hose that pumps water into the bucket at roughly one liter per minute, and I increase the throughput of the hose by 3%, what eventually happens to the water level in the bucket?
This is a really important point that I have not mentioned. Equilibrium. Thank you for bringing it up.
Another analogy, if you have a system that is in equilibrium and oscillates less than 5% over time, like a seesaw where two kids of equal weight are throwing a decent sized ball back and forth, if you add just 2-6% more weight on one side of the seesaw (really adding it everytime one of the kids throws), it throws the whole system out of balance. Since it normally oscillates anyway, it can compensate for a time, but not forever.
The answer to this is, Yes. Climate models are the main source climate scientists are relying upon as a verification method. As each model matures, the actual results do not match the modeled results in each and every case. The fact that these models (hypotheses or guesses, if you will) don't match what can actually be measured causes the entire initial hypothesis or at least the contributing factors cited in that hypothesis to be questioned.
But not the theory. When a model does not accurately function, you change the inputs.
Guess what does not ever work as a model, pretending anthropogenic greenhouse gases don't have any effect. When you make their effect zero, the models fail universally.
Actually iridium data suggests a meteorite impact at a time coinciding with a period of massive vulcanism likely spurred the TJ extinction event. And FYI, atmospheric CO2 has been hypothesized to lead to shut downs of the major thermohaline currents which would cause an ice age.
Do you have a source for the idea that exponential increase in CO2 amounts leads to a linear growth in temperature? You need to provide one.
No one is scrambling, it is a field with half a million published papers just on anthropogenic climate change. And who cares what you think you know compared to the people who actually spend their careers studying that? It is literally the equivalent of mom's reading blogs thinking they know more about vaccines than medical professionals.
Do you have a source for the idea that exponential increase in CO2 amounts leads to a linear growth in temperature? You need to provide one.
You misunderstand. Peer review, the bulk of research globally that is peer reviewed, challenges the conspiracy theory assertion. Geeze louise.
When those same "peers" that review one position's theory refuse to even acknowledge a countering theory, or when the very same publications the paper and those "peer reviews" are published in refuse to publish contrary papers which could easily be peer reviewed therefore showing how the original paper may have or has faults, the peer review process falls flat of being science.
All science is subject to constant tests and validation via the scientific method. Anything less is not science as we know it.
Last edited by KS_Referee; 03-03-2017 at 01:24 PM..
interesting is you must have a reading comprehension disability...
what I wrote is that the climate warming that has been currently happening for the last 16000 years since the peak of the last ice age is natural
and mans contribution is less than 2%
the overwhelming evidence is that the cycles are natural
What do you mean by "naturally occurring", climate warming is always caused by some physical change. It's not as if it's something like the change in tides. The Milankovitch cycles were responsible for most of the prior warming and cooling trends that happened over millions of years for the most part. So what is causing this rapid climate warming in the last 100 years other than man's impact.
When those same "peers" that review one position's theory refuse to even acknowledge a countering theory, or when the very same publications the paper and those "peer reviews" are published in refuse to publish contrary papers which could easily be peer reviewed therefore showing how the original paper may have or has faults, the peer review process falls flat of being science.
Back to the conspiracy crap.
Quote:
all science is subject to constant tests and validation via the scientific method. Anything less is not science as we know it.
And yet, your biggest criticism is that testing and revision of climate models (part of the scientific method) is a flaw. That is pure hypocrisy.
This conversation reminds me of that movie "legally blonde" when she's first in court and starts to explain what mens rea means rather than making an opening statement.
Regardless of what the discussion reminds you of , as another poster has pointed out, AGW/ACC is in the hypothesis stage of the scientific method. It's a guess based on (some, but not all) observed data. It's not a theory.
"Do not argue with a fool, lest you be mistaken for one"
Seriously, let them go, their entire position is not of the science, but to defy YOU!
Let the zombies be!
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.
, as another poster has pointed out, AGW/ACC is in the hypothesis stage of the scientific method. It's a guess based on (some, but not all) observed data. It's not a theory.
