Red Hot Planet: HEAT RECORDS SET ALL OVER THE WORLD (environmentalist, Obama)
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.
But we do know that carbon dioxide is s good absorber of infrared radiation.
You don't understand the science.
CO2 absorbs at 2.7 microns, 4.3 microns and 15 microns.
This graph from Columbia University proves there is no absorption at 2.7 microns and minimal absorption at 4.3 microns.
Since only 4.3 microns and 15 microns are absorbed on Earth, we'll apply Wien's Law to both.
Wien's Law T (Temperature) = b / wavelength in micrometers, where "b" is a constant equal to 2,900 um-K.
T = 2,900 um-K / 15 um = 193°K = -112°F
T = 2,900 um-K / 4.3 um = 673.9°K = 753°F
What we can infer from science is that 4.3 microns has far greater energy than 15 microns.
However the absorption rate at 4.3 microns is minuscule.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floorist
Before a science paper is accepted as right, they have to present proof.
No, that's not how it works. No proof is necessary.
A scientific paper is merely a scientific essay. An hypothesis is stated, evidence is presented, the methodology for the evidence is presented and then conclusions are drawn.
The paper is peer-reviewed only to determine if the methodology conforms to scientific norms, that the data is consistent with the methodology and that both are reflected in the conclusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
Ah, another one who does not know how science works.....Why am I not surprised?
Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science.
I already gave you examples of scientific proofs, which you totally ignored, because it destroys your argument.
The hallmark of science is the ability of others to replicate the results you obtained through experimentation, and it is experimentation coupled with the ability to replicate the results that is the proof.
You can make whatever claims you want, but unless others can replicate your experiment and achieve the same results, it is unproven.
Cold-fusion is a classic example, because no one ever could replicate the experiment and achieve the same results, but by you logic, cold-fusion is fact, merely because it was claimed to be true.
"The hallmark of science is the ability of others to replicate the results you obtained through experimentation, and it is experimentation coupled with the ability to replicate the results that is the proof.
You can make whatever claims you want, but unless others can replicate your experiment and achieve the same results, it is unproven."
I wouldn't know, I never saw it....You are aware some of us are talking about science here, not Gore's theater production.
I saw it at a screening at my synagogue. I was roundly booed when I stood up and said that I considered it a fraud. This was a couple of days after the "Tax Day Nor'Easter" that struck on April 15, 2007, giving the NYC area upwards of 7" of rain.
People asked "how could you say that" after the maniacal destruction from that storm. Of course, even with CO2 emissions those storms have not become regular events.
And they will accept this as global warming. But if I was to say it was cooler than normal here, they would say it is just weather.
Wather is small fluctuations. What we mean is that its been warm for a long time and grtting warmer then it’sa trend.
Think of a line, like a graph. It has fluctuations, warm cold warm cold. Seems like typical weather. Now zoom out and you’ll see that those fluctuations sit on top of a larger line that is steadily going up. We can see the biger picture because we see a continuing trend over the years.
Or how about a paper plane? Throw it over a hill. You know it’s going down. But you cant predict the tiny fluctuations. Those fluctuations would be the weather. The direction of the overall paper plane is the climate.
"The hallmark of science is the ability of others to replicate the results you obtained through experimentation, and it is experimentation coupled with the ability to replicate the results that is the proof.
You can make whatever claims you want, but unless others can replicate your experiment and achieve the same results, it is unproven."
And you just said proof was required.
Proof in the current results that came in the experiment. Prof that the experiment yields these results that support a theory or hypothesis. Doesn’t 100% solve or prove a scientific issue. It just shows that something works and the theory is further suppprted and subject to further experimentation.
For example, we know gravity exists. But we still have more experiments to do in order to test theories about the nature of gravity. One perfect example is LIGO.
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.
