Climate Change & Global Warming

[Gorgonzola Butt-cheese]

Climate change ? random and chaotic according to this report

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070309103123.htm

 

I do agree with the principle of trying to reduce fossil fuel use, mostly to preserve it for future generations, to limit natural habitat change and destruction and because i dont like needless waste.

 

I am not convinced with the co2 story as i am sure you well know, but what I find most bizzare is the number of people who are now convinced we can control the climate, (You must be totally cuckoo to put your faith in the possiblity of this).

Those who talk of limiting temp increases to two degrees ?

Perhaps we could burn no fossil fuels and plant millions of trees and the temperature would still rise, in fact history shows this has happenened in the past, forests increasing naturally whilst ice sheets melted, sometimes very quickly, and not an internal combustion engine in sight.

 

Back to the here and now , 10 days till mid summer and its nae very warm....

[Carlos]

"Theory" tended to encompass everything which could not be fully demonstrated in practice one way or the other.

Sure, that's what people mean by theory day to day, as long as we all realise that when a scientist describes something as "a theory" they don't mean that at all, but mean that it has been tested to the best current understanding and found to have no major issues and is generally is accepted as producing solid results. It's likely not the final and full story, as Newton's theory of gravity was surpassed by Einstein's, but it's good enough for the job.

[ArabiaTerra]

Climate change ? random and chaotic according to this report

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070309103123.htm

 

The thing is, Gorgo, if you look at the graph published in the Science Daily report (though a larger version would be better), you'll notice that these large swings happen during ice ages, they do not happen during interglacials.

 

We are not, currently, in an ice age.

 

"Theory" tended to encompass everything which could not be fully demonstrated in practice one way or the other.

"It's just a theory"

 

The rallying call of creationists the world over. The thing is, as Carlos says, the scientific definition of "theory" is quite different. In fact it is almost the opposite of the everyday definition.

 

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

 

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

 

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived the theory of gravity which describes how gravity works,what causes it, and how it behaves. We also use that to develop another theory, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

 

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.

 

from here.

[Ghostrider]

"Theory" tended to encompass everything which could not be fully demonstrated in practice one way or the other.

"It's just a theory"

 

The rallying call of creationists the world over. The thing is, as Carlos says, the scientific definition of "theory" is quite different. In fact it is almost the opposite of the everyday definition.

 

Regardless of semantics, until and unless a "reasonable" level of physical proof is provided, a significant percentage of humans are always going to take it with a good pinch of salt, on the basis that it is only what someone proposes. To do otherwise requires a certain level of trust and respect for the originators of any given doctrine.

 

The necessary level of physical proof has not yet been attained, and will not be attained at least until and unless the sceptics above experience, or at least can be shown actual changes on this planet in line with predictions, which are large enough in and of themselves, or widespread enough that denying them or arguing they were caused by other means becomes very difficult.

 

The only real evidence of global warming which has been presented to the public as yet originates from temperature data, ice sheet behaviour etc etc. Notwithstanding that much of the data is subject to argument concerning its credibility, in the minds of many all of it has to channel through too small of a group of people before it is released to the public.

 

It all relies on a relatively small group of players telling everyone else what this means, what that means, and what to believe on the subject. Everything concerning it could be very easily manipulated with any bias the most powerful within the information chain wanted. To those who are sceptical by nature or have an anti-establishment attitude, the source(s) of the information and the route it takes to public ears is simply too open to manipulation and abuse to be readily accepted without further, preferably independent backup.

[KOYAANISQATSI]

"It's just a theory"

The rallying call of creationists the world over. The thing is, as Carlos says, the scientific definition of "theory" is quite different. In fact it is almost the opposite of the everyday definition.

 

Ahem...

 

The difference between a Creationist and a believer in the Big Bang is that the Creationists admit they are operating on blind faith... Big Bang believers call their blind faith "theoretical mathematical variables" and claim to be scientists rather than the theologists they really are.

 

What it does “explain†is far out-weighed by what it does not explain.

[Carlos]

Regardless of semantics, until and unless a "reasonable" level of physical proof is provided, a significant percentage of humans are always going to take it with a good pinch of salt, on the basis that it is only what someone proposes. To do otherwise requires a certain level of trust and respect for the originators of any given doctrine.

Again, the difference between the scientific use of the word and the common use applies, and is a bit more than semantics. By calling it a theory, the scientist is giving it the status of something that they do already consider solid and trust worthy. Other people are still free to disagree with that assessment of course, but it starts to need some backing to move beyond philosophy....

 

Similarly with KOYAANISQATSI's ideas on the electric universe, I'd suggest that those generally sit above Einstein's relativity theory, as that sits above Newton's theories - even if the electric universe idea holds then relativity can still be considered a useful theory for the range of situations where it holds true, it does not have to be able to hold for every situation to be useful, as long as you know where it does hold?

[KOYAANISQATSI]

Similarly with KOYAANISQATSI's ideas on the electric universe, I'd suggest that those generally sit above Einstein's relativity theory, as that sits above Newton's theories - even if the electric universe idea holds then relativity can still be considered a useful theory for the range of situations where it holds true, it does not have to be able to hold for every situation to be useful, as long as you know where it does hold?

 

I get what your going for with that and in a roundabout kinda way, I sorta agree with what you're saying. It's at the added on derivations of Einsteins maths, like big bang, black holes and dark matter...etc, that I really balk...(although these used to be among my favourite things to read about). I better add that the electric universe theory is not anything of my making but just where I ended up after I lost all faith in the big bang and black holes and went in search of a new beginning...or not, as the case may be.

 

Anyhoo...beg pardon, topic on, not.

[Gorgonzola Butt-cheese]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627640.800-whats-wrong-with-the-sun.html?page=3

Perhaps the next mini ice age is beggining? 8% chance at the moment apparently....

 

The sunspot forecast

 

Although sunspots are making a belated comeback after the protracted solar minimum, the signs are that all is not well. For decades, William Livingston at the National Solar Observatory in Tucson, Arizona, has been measuring the strength of the magnetic fields which puncture the sun's surface and cause the spots to develop. Last year, he and colleague Matt Penn pointed out that the average strength of sunspot magnetic fields has been sliding dramatically since 1995.

 

If the trend continues, in just five years the field will have slipped below the threshold magnetic field needed for sunspots to form.

 

How likely is this to happen? Mike Lockwood at the University of Reading, UK, has scoured historical data to look for similar periods of solar inactivity, which show up as increases in the occurrence of certain isotopes in ice cores and tree rings. He found 24 such instances in the last few thousand years. On two of those occasions, sunspots all but disappeared for decades. Lockwood puts the chance of this happening now at just 8 per cent.

 

Only on one occasion did the sunspot number bounce back to record levels. In the majority of cases, the sun continued producing spots albeit at significantly depressed levels. It seems that the sunspot bonanza of last century is over.

[KOYAANISQATSI]

http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/meeting2010.html

 

The 58th Bilderberg Meeting will be held in Sitges, Spain 3 - 6 June 2010. The Conference will deal mainly with Financial Reform, Security, Cyber Technology, Energy, Pakistan, Afghanistan, World Food Problem, Global Cooling

 

Are they inducing global cooling, or preventing it?

[KOYAANISQATSI]

Of course not, that would require you to abandon your silly little conspiracy theory (which you have so much evidence for*) about how global warming is all a big plot to increase your taxes and form a world government and usher in the ... (gasp!).. *New World Order*

 

A cataclysmic “Great Event†is approaching which will occur in or around the year 2014 and determine the course of the rest of the 21st century, according to a startling new thesis published this week.

The remarkable claim forms the central message in a new book, 2014 - How to survive the next world crisis, written by the University of Cambridge academic, Professor Nicholas Boyle.

 

It warns that the economic collapse of 2007-2008 could mark only the start of a wider breakdown in international relations, and predicts that by the middle of the decade just dawned, the United States will find itself the key player in a series of make-or-break decisions about the future of the world.

 

The choices the US makes will either condemn us to a century of violence and poverty, or usher in a new age of global co-operation, the book asserts.

 

It adds, however, that the more peaceful alternative will only be realised if the international community can accept that nation states are no longer strong enough to deal with the world's problems and construct an effective system of global governance instead.

 

Those issues represent some of the major flashpoints of world politics; among them economic management, the emergence of new powers such as China and India, and the need for international co-operation on climate change.

At the heart of that response, he says, should be the realisation that a model of global governance is needed to bring politics into line with the global economy.

 

The book adds, however, that global governance can only occur if there is an accompanying change in the philosophy that underpins international relations. Professor Boyle describes sovereign nation-states as a "20th century experiment that failed"

"It is a profoundly hopeful sign that we begin the 21st century with very many more international and intergovernmental organisations than we had at the start of the 20th," Boyle says. What longer history suggests, he adds, is the need for a system of "imperial of global regulation

 

With the exception of the 20th century, Boyle contends that the model which has guided world progress throughout history has been that of Empire. Similarly, the book argues that in the 21st century, it is a network of global organisations - from multinationals to the still only partly-acknowledged "Empire" of America - that determine many aspects of our lives.

 

http://www.cambridgenetwork.co.uk/news/article/default.aspx?objid=71491

 

More conspiracy nonsense?

[Gorgonzola Butt-cheese]

The latest remarkable findings

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10342318.stm

 

yep just when its starting to get a bit colder, greenhouse gases have been found to cause ice ages.

Another very large research grant will be required no doubt.

[Carlos]

Slight mis-representation of the jist of an article about a sensible line of research?

 

She told BBC News: "This study reveals a feedback process that has magnified climate change since the inception of Northern Hemisphere glaciation 2.7 million years ago.

"It seems the tropical warming caused by high CO2 levels set off a chain of events resulting in additional greenhouse gases, including water vapour, being released to the atmosphere, thus causing further warming."

Dr Lear said that such studies of past climate change were "invaluable in understanding the current climate system, and hence predicting future change".

[Gorgonzola Butt-cheese]

Directly below nice pictures of woolly mammoth it says

 

C02 could have caused ice ages in northern hemisphere to intensify.

what's mis-representative about that??

 

I dont know but several millions of £'s worth of research during the next cold spell could give us a new theory?.

[Carlos]

OK - BBC say "C02 could have caused ice ages in northern hemisphere to intensify. " below a nice cartoon.

 

Scientist says "we've found new evidence of climate feedback responses between the north and south hemispheres that might help us understand things better"

[ArabiaTerra]

Wow, Gorgo, it's only taken 20 years, but you seem to be finally getting the message.

 

Changes in CO2 can cause changes in climate!!!