global warming?

[chesters1]

I cant see why we need these useless revelations, if its hotter now than when the last ice age was here then the climates changed whats all the commotion about? It was hadnt changed it would still be the ice age! but technically as theres ice on earth we are still in one

 

Global warming is even easier yes its warmer now than when it was colder

 

Both though do not change in perfect triangles (cold rising to hotter back down to cold ) they fluctuate ,it maybe warmer now than the 17th century when we had ice fairs but its probably not as warm as the medieval warm period ,lots of things effect climate including nature ,if theres lots of polution through volcanoes the ash will fall somewhere ,if its on the ice the ice will darken making it melt easier if it settles on the mrs's washing she will get heated ,its very complicated for some minds i presume

 

Climate never stops changing ,if the globe is warming its global warming if its not its global cooling

 

Man may not help the situation ,some may even care but most just want stuff and all the time they do the industries of the earth will happily destroy anything to get their profits ,as industry run the planet then sit back and enjoy the ride ,mankind "needs" very little but wants a great deal ,i myself say publish and be dammed man has his time on earth like everything before and after him ,its just a pity its such a small span of time ,just a blink in the eye of the planets existance

 

Profit makes the world go around ,if it can be made poluting the esrth it will if it thinks it can make a buck blaming another division of its own company making things to counter the effect it will ,the poluting bit wont stop either way you dont get stuff for nothing it doesnt appear as if by magic ,companies buy up patents that would lessen their profits its a well known ploy to make more profit ,they ,the governments they run and the people in them al, want their cut the planet is far far down the list on their agendas

 

Yes man (as in mankind) does not help itself but using climate change to punish the poor through taxation and laws while merrily ignoring tbemselves is not an incentive to deny a crafty bit of income at the expense of the rest ,lets see those in power give up cars and planes and expensive imports and foreign holidays and tax payer funded meetings in the nicest and most expensive locations on the planet then something may start to happen ,warming may slow but it wont stop its been happening long before we had the power to influence it it will keep changing when time has long forgotten us

Edited September 23, 2013 by chesters1

[Phone]

Cory,

 

Bring on your mop.

 

Not every statement about a future event is a scientific prediction. More commonly it is a prophecy.

While making predictions is one merit of a theory, it's neither substitute for scientific quality nor an indicator for promise.

Explanatory power of a theory can be valuable even if not predictive.

As often as not a scientific prediction is falsification in the name of "interpretations" (another definition of "paycheck").

 

For example, "You will die" is NOT a scientific prediction. A scientific prediction would, for me, read something like, "At least 99.99% of people your age who smoke 1 pack per day will be dead 80 years from now," The second sentence is a scientific prediction.

 

The Scientific Method is a beautiful thing. By requiring that scientific hypotheses be testable and subject to objective verification, the Scientific Method distinguishes the pursuit of objective knowledge (science) from faith-based principles and circular logic.

 

The steps of the Scientific Method are:
Observation/Research
Hypothesis
Prediction
Experimentation
Conclusion (copied from the web)

 

Phone

 

Putting along I found this interesting http://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/jul/30/climate-sceptics-scientific-method

[Phone]

Vagabond,

 

Certainly rare earths are an example of "finite natural recources". It may not have been they best choice as they are not essential. How about phosphorus used in fertilizer? Will technology out pace population expansion? Odd as it may sound water and distribution is a finite resource where the land is suitable for crops feeding the world. Can technology outpace the need for cheap oil? Human numbers may be a finite number?

 

I do agree it may not matter, Based on current technology obliteration is in the cards. The ''what ifs" of outer Space is still a little far fetched for this old man.

 

Frankly I'd rather like to hear your views on the oceans (finite) in that most of our oxygen comes from a healthy ocean environment. IMO a far more likely source for climate change.

 

Phone

[Guest polaris]

Not every statement about a future event is a scientific prediction. More commonly it is a prophecy.

While making predictions is one merit of a theory, it's neither substitute for scientific quality nor an indicator for promise.

Explanatory power of a theory can be valuable even if not predictive.

If a theory cannot make predictions then it is not much use as a theory. This is the current trouble with latest theories of the orgins of the universe.

Another pint please.

[Phone]

polaris,

 

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. - and repeated and repeated and repeated

 

Phone

I'll have another pint also (and I don't drink)

Edited September 23, 2013 by Phone

[Phone]

All,

 

This thread is becoming much clearer.

 

[Guest polaris]

It's a partial definition phone. It must explain and predict. If it cannot predict it is incomplete.

[Vagabond]

Putting along I found this interesting http://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/jul/30/climate-sceptics-scientific-method

Good find phone

 

Cory , before dismissing all counter arguments as being "in denial" please read the article carefully.

 

A few weeks back, in a discussion of the proposal to get rid of hereditary peers, I suggested that independent (ie no party allegiance) , unelected (no reliance upon stage-managed popularity polls) peers just might vote for what they thought right, and as such, were the only check we have on the Lower House, you were kind enough to signal "cory likes this"

 

Similarly, scientists need to be free to pursue "blue sky" research, unencumbered by the need to seek funding. I was lucky, in that my own researches were not restricted in any way, and by the time universities were having to go cap in hand to sponsors, I was sufficiently near retirement as to be unaffected.

 

Here is a quote from Phone's find that reflects my own views

 

 

Many climate sceptics worry that climate science cannot be dubbed scientific as it is not falsifiable. While elements of climate science may be testable in the lab, the complexity of interactions and feedback loops, as well as the levels of uncertainty in climate models, are too high to be a useful basis for public policy

 

 

"Public policy". as Chesters would put it, is to burden us with yet more taxes.

[Vagabond]

1. Odd as it may sound water and distribution is a finite resource where the land is suitable for crops feeding the world.

 

1a. Can technology outpace the need for cheap oil?

 

1b, Human numbers may be a finite number?

 

2. I do agree it may not matter, Based on current technology obliteration is in the cards. The ''what ifs" of outer Space is still a little far fetched for this old man.

 

3. Frankly I'd rather like to hear your views on the oceans (finite) in that most of our oxygen comes from a healthy ocean environment.

1. Agreed. That may be man's most vulnerable spot.

1a According to my daughter, who works at the cutting edge of research into petroleum resources, the answer is yes, although "cheap oil" is never going to happen - substitute "barely affordable oil"

1b Yes - see 1 above. Some people are starving already - also, humans are like rats, overcrowd them and they start fighting amongst themselves - and humans often don't even need that excuse.

 

2, Extinction is the most likely.

 

Mining other planets is not that far fetched We don't need "outer space". The nearer parts of the solar system are technically reachable already - although economic feasibility is still a long way off.

 

3. IMHO we will run out of food long before running out of oxygen. My area of research was mangrove swamps which used to cover about 70% of the world's coastline. We have lost destroyed about half of that. ...... but there you go, "Save the Mangrove Swamps" doesn't have the same ring as "Save the Rain Forests" although mangroves are major producers of oxygen, and the swamps are nurseries for a surprisingly large number of fish species of economic importance.

[Leon Roskilly]

Worrying

 

http://www.opb.org/news/article/ocean-of-change/