DC Tom Posted April 20, 2016 Posted April 20, 2016 Curveball! I got this though. Simple, fill a bottle with air and increase the CO2 and leave in the sun. Measure the temp increase and do the same with a bottle without increasing CO2. Boom! Not only does your proposed experiment ignore how the greenhouse effect actually works...you're not even using a correct definition of "falsifiable." So let me spell it out for you: if your hypothesis is that "increased anthropogenic CO2 output causes a measurable increase in atmospheric thermal energy," describe an experiment that can be performed to demonstrate that the hypothesis is in some way untrue.
Tiberius Posted April 20, 2016 Posted April 20, 2016 Not only does your proposed experiment ignore how the greenhouse effect actually works...you're not even using a correct definition of "falsifiable." So let me spell it out for you: if your hypothesis is that "increased anthropogenic CO2 output causes a measurable increase in atmospheric thermal energy," describe an experiment that can be performed to demonstrate that the hypothesis is in some way untrue. [/quote I think you got me here. But I'm still right, global warming is a real science, and eugenics is not.
Greg F Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 As gator stomps his feet and jumps up and down screaming. I think you got me here. But I'm still right, global warming is a real science, and eugenics is not.And we all know if it was 1920 gator would be a enthusiastic supporter of Eugenics.
Tiberius Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 As gator stomps his feet and jumps up and down screaming.And we all know if it was 1920 gator would be a enthusiastic supporter of Eugenics. Lol, so your argument is this is a passing scientific fad? Is that right? Shoddy science or a conspiracy? And your argument that I would support eugenics is a logical fallacy that undermines everything thing else you have claimed. Shows you draw bizarre conclusions
DC Tom Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 Not only does your proposed experiment ignore how the greenhouse effect actually works...you're not even using a correct definition of "falsifiable." So let me spell it out for you: if your hypothesis is that "increased anthropogenic CO2 output causes a measurable increase in atmospheric thermal energy," describe an experiment that can be performed to demonstrate that the hypothesis is in some way untrue. [/quote I think you got me here. But I'm still right, global warming is a real science, and eugenics is not. Not if it's not falsifiable, it isn't.
Tiberius Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 Not if it's not falsifiable, it isn't. Can you explain this out for me? Obviously they don't have a test tube earth to test this. So they can't take it to that step. You are not saying we should just ignore the issue because of this are you? You are just strictly saying its not technically "science" because its impossible to take that last step, correct?
Chef Jim Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 Can you explain this out for me? Obviously they don't have a test tube earth to test this. So they can't take it to that step. You are not saying we should just ignore the issue because of this are you? You are just strictly saying its not technically "science" because its impossible to take that last step, correct? With all these people yelling the sky is falling has anyone even remotely suggested that there is anything that can be done about it?
Tiberius Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 With all these people yelling the sky is falling has anyone even remotely suggested that there is anything that can be done about it? yes. look it up for yourself and find out https://www.google.com/
Chef Jim Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 yes. look it up for yourself and find out https://www.google.com/ A couple quick searches. http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-climate-change Hey sounds great! But wait. A 2008 paper by James Hansen [PDF], former director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and one of the world’s foremost experts on climate change, showed the true gravity of the situation. In it, Hansen set out to determine what level of atmospheric CO2 society should aim for “if humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted.” His climate models showed that exceeding 350 parts per million CO2 in the atmosphere would likely have catastrophic effects. We’ve already blown past that limit. Right now, environmental monitoring shows concentrations around 400 ppm. That’s particularly problematic because CO2 remains in the atmosphere for more than a century; even if we shut down every fossil-fueled power plant today, existing CO2 will continue to warm the planet. Oh wait I'm sorry. There's this optimistic one. http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/reverse-global-warming.htm Hmmmm. Maybe not. But even if we were to convince everyone to stop cutting down trees, start re-foresting the planet, switch to environmentally friendly fuels and energy production methods, and generally try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the Earth's temperature could continue to climb. It could take as long as 1,000 years after a complete halt of greenhouse gas emissions for environmental measures like sea level and ocean surface temperature to return to pre-industrial levels [source: NOAA]. In addition, other factors besides greenhouse gas emissions can contribute to global warming. Oh here we go. We're saved!! http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-09-27/scientists-are-looking-riskier-ways-reverse-climate-change Awwwww ****! How or when we’d resort to changing the climate is an open question. Until recently, we didn’t have the technology or climate models for it to even be an option. Brad Allenby is a sustainability scientist and professor at Arizona State University. He worries about the fallout from an attempt. “Any technology that is powerful enough to change the climate is powerful enough to have a lot of unanticipated consequences,” he says. That could include shifting the patterns of monsoons in tropical climates. “If that happens,” Allenby says, “then you’re looking at the potential for major chaos in countries like India and that, of course, becomes a problem for the entire world.” Bottom line. Mother Nature's a B word. No one has any idea if what we're experiencing can be changed.
Azalin Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 Here's an interesting piece from PBS/NOVA http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/cause-ice-age.html "We are still in the midst of the third major cooling period that began around 3 million years ago."
B-Man Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 "We are still in the midst of the third major cooling period that began around 3 million years ago." I thought it was a little chilly in here
Tiberius Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 A couple quick searches. http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-climate-change Hey sounds great! But wait. Oh wait I'm sorry. There's this optimistic one. http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/reverse-global-warming.htm Hmmmm. Maybe not. Oh here we go. We're saved!! http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-09-27/scientists-are-looking-riskier-ways-reverse-climate-change Awwwww ****! Bottom line. Mother Nature's a B word. No one has any idea if what we're experiencing can be changed. Be that as it may, letting it get worse is just stupid if we have the power to change that. Here's an interesting piece from PBS/NOVA http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/cause-ice-age.html "We are still in the midst of the third major cooling period that began around 3 million years ago." Yes, change is continuous with the climate, but scientists are trying to get across the point that we are seeing change greatly accelerated. At least that's what I've seen presented by some
....lybob Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 Here's an interesting piece from PBS/NOVA http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/cause-ice-age.html "We are still in the midst of the third major cooling period that began around 3 million years ago." National corporate funding for NOVA is provided by Google and Cancer Treatment Centers of America. Major funding for NOVA is provided by the David H. Koch Fund for Science, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and PBS viewers.
Azalin Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 National corporate funding for NOVA is provided by Google and Cancer Treatment Centers of America. Major funding for NOVA is provided by the David H. Koch Fund for Science, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and PBS viewers. What? All this time NOVA has been nothing but an elaborate front for right-wing propagandists??? Boy, do I feel dumb.
Tiberius Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 When does NY State get Florida's climate? That would be hard not to see as a positive
Greg F Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 Be that as it may, letting it get worse is just stupid if we have the power to change that. Yes, change is continuous with the climate, but scientists are trying to get across the point that we are seeing change greatly accelerated. At least that's what I've seen presented by some 'Scientist' are trying to keep the government money flowing for their 'settled' science. The only place it is accelerating is in the dubious models. Sparky as a matter of course always falls back to the 'scientist says' routine, an appeal to authority. It doesn't make any difference how many examples of 'consensus' failure you show him he remains blind to reality. As Tom pointed out before, climate change is a religion for the gators of the world. They are completely unable to assess the science or face the conflicting facts. In that respect he is no different than the idiots that believe the earth is only 6,000 years old. This should not be a surprise to anybody as he appears to have reading comprehension problems and is prone to juvenile outbursts.
DC Tom Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 And btw, Tiberius...I will answer your question previously. I'm just under severe deadline pressure right now, too much to give it a proper answer.
unbillievable Posted April 22, 2016 Posted April 22, 2016 The hypothesis is that "Increased anthropogenic CO2 output causes a measurable increase in atmospheric thermal energy" Isn't it a valid response to point out that 3% of yearly CO2 emissions is from humans? The planet is simply a larger version of the bottle. So just pump in 3% more CO2 into the bottle every year, and keep measuring it's temperature. You'll see an increase in temperature every year. DC Damaged Cranium Tom cannot deny that earths CO2 levels measurably rise every year. Also he cannot deny CO2 levels are at their highest point since mankind evolved from apes. Either way, there is a littany of science litterature out there debunking and crushing the claim that human CO2 output is too small to matter. It's not our job to rehash a debate that is already decided. I think you would need a Gulf of Mexico next to NY to have that. NY would more likely get Atlanta weather. Anyways the "when" is the biggest unkown. 10 years, 100 years? 500 years? Who the !@#$ knows. A better experiment would involve filling the bottle with water and sticking a potato into it.
DC Tom Posted April 22, 2016 Posted April 22, 2016 The hypothesis is that "Increased anthropogenic CO2 output causes a measurable increase in atmospheric thermal energy" Isn't it a valid response to point out that 3% of yearly CO2 emissions is from humans? The planet is simply a larger version of the bottle. So just pump in 3% more CO2 into the bottle every year, and keep measuring it's temperature. You'll see an increase in temperature every year. DC Damaged Cranium Tom cannot deny that earths CO2 levels measurably rise every year. Also he cannot deny CO2 levels are at their highest point since mankind evolved from apes. Either way, there is a littany of science litterature out there debunking and crushing the claim that human CO2 output is too small to matter. It's not our job to rehash a debate that is already decided. I think you would need a Gulf of Mexico next to NY to have that. NY would more likely get Atlanta weather. Anyways the "when" is the biggest unkown. 10 years, 100 years? 500 years? Who the !@#$ knows. This is unbelievably ignorant.
Recommended Posts