Challenge to the Warmers

Discussion in 'Environment' started by CrusaderFrank, May 26, 2010.

  1. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,150
    Thanks Received:
    14,897
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +36,864
    There seems to be an enormous amount of ignorance on the basic notion of the Scientific Method on the part of the Warmers. Real science does NOT work on a consensus basis.

    Instead scientists makes observations (this is where the Warmers stop) then make a hypothesis, then subject their hypothesis to rigorous testing to DISPROVE it and if its still standing and repeatable in a laboratory setting, then you have something!

    So Warmers, tell us your AGW hypothesis, please state it here.
     
  2. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    40,948
    Thanks Received:
    7,964
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,683


    Crusader Frank if I may make one correction to your SM methodology, first comes the hypothesis, then the observations...then follow as you so eloquently presented!

    Cheers!
     
  3. Matthew
    Offline

    Matthew Blue dog all the way!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    49,614
    Thanks Received:
    4,589
    Trophy Points:
    1,885
    Location:
    Portland Oregon
    Ratings:
    +15,101
    How about this challenge to our warming friends.

    Post your thinking for warming within 5 years, 10 years, 25 years. This will make it easy for us to go back and see how close you got it. If it's wrong and it don't warm up then the deniers win.:clap2:
     
  4. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,419
    Thanks Received:
    5,406
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,281
    If it fails to warm, we all win.

    However, Let us look at that. If it does warm, then you fellows are going to admit that you were wrong? No, you will not. You will do the Limpbaugh jig, and state it was something else that influenced the weather and the scientists are still wrong.

    Five years.

    10 glaciers left in Glacier National Park.

    Major outgassing in the Arctic Ocean Clathrates.

    At least two years 2010 to 2014 that exceed 1998 in warmth.

    More and more violent precipitation events.

    Rate of ocean rise continues to accelerate.

    Artic Ocean clear enough of ice for major ocean traffic for at least one month of the summer.

    More extreme forest fires on several continents.

    Ten years

    Occasional clathrate outgassing on coastal shelves that are not in the Arctic.

    Ocean rise beginning to affect the infrastructure of port cities worldwide.

    Periods of no ice in the Arctic Ocean during the summer. The Arctic is navigable for two months of the summer.

    Precipitation events, both droughts and floods, create agricultural crisis in many regions of the world.

    Outgassing from the Arctic Ocean clathrates and Permafrost now becoming an apreciable percentage of the increase in GHGs in the atmosphere.

    Major power problems as many cities experiance extremes in heat during the summer.

    Much of the ocean is incapable of supporting major fisheries due to overfishing, pollution, and acidification.

    Twentyfive years

    Major fisheries all collapsed.

    No grain reserves left now as the extremes in weather have ruined crops on many continents.

    Arctic Ocean open to ship travel 3 months of the year, first major oil spill from the drilling in the Artic.

    The Arctic Ocean and Permafrost now the primary source of the increase in CH4 in the atmosphere.

    Bangladesh and some other low lying nations are effectively non-existant from the rise in sea level and storm surges.

    Nations, including the US, are using military force to defend their borders against refugees from poor nations. The Canadians have also closed their southern border.

    Somewhere in this period, a nuclear war between nations over water. Mideast or Asia.

    Energy companies worldwide still stating that GHGs have no influence on climate.
     
  5. Matthew
    Offline

    Matthew Blue dog all the way!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    49,614
    Thanks Received:
    4,589
    Trophy Points:
    1,885
    Location:
    Portland Oregon
    Ratings:
    +15,101
    I won't point to Limbaugh because I seriously doubt he has much science education behind him. But if it is El nino or some other factor causing the increase in warming, I don't see the reason why we shouldn't point to it as the reason for a very warm year. Really, I won't say the things you say will happen won't happen because be it a natural cycle or what some believe caused by man it is possible both ways. We have had ocean raises and falls of hundreds of feet throughout earth's history. So it is possible.

    We will have to see about the rest, but 2010 won't beat 1998 leaving 4 years in which 2 have to be warmer then 1998 for your thinking to be right. Based on ENSO signals right now the developing la nina should last into a good part of 2011. In which pretty much kills 2011 from beating it. Being with la nina most of the pacific is normally below normal and the Pacific is a huge part of the world. So we got 3 years and which 2 have to be warmer then 1998.

    I agree that methane is a more powerful green house gas in which if the arctic keeps warming be it from a cycle or from man could have some effect on the climate. We will see. We will see. I will not go to limbaugh either way.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2010
  6. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    40,948
    Thanks Received:
    7,964
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,683
    If it warms we all win, the warmers allways fail to mention the historical record is very clear that when it has been warm the people and planet have prospered.
     
  7. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,419
    Thanks Received:
    5,406
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,281
    Because that is a falsehood. P-T extinction. PETM extinction.

    A rapid rise in GHGs, then outgassing of the ocean clathrates, followed by a rapid extinction event. It has happened many times in the history of the Earth. There is no reason to believe that it will not happen just because man is the source of the GHGs this time.

    Methane Catastrophe
     
  8. konradv
    Offline

    konradv Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    22,541
    Thanks Received:
    2,554
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Ratings:
    +5,660
    LOL!!! No one has claimed that's how science works. Talk about consensus is only to counter denier claims that many scientists don't believe in AGW or even more laughably that polls show fewer people believe, niether of which has anything to do with the scientific method.

    As for the hypothesis, it's simple and, so far, never been refuted. GOOD LUCK!

    The ability of CO2 and other gases to absorb infra-red radiation is well documented.

    The concentration of theses gases, including some not found in nature, has been going uo since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

    Therefore, if the trend continues, warming is inevitable.
     
  9. Big Fitz
    Offline

    Big Fitz User Quit *****

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2009
    Messages:
    16,917
    Thanks Received:
    2,473
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +2,475
    I see you watched that 'scientific' special on ABC too. I couldn't make it beyond 2020 their theories were so ludicrous and socialist. Nothing like a little fiction to masquerade as science to muddy the waters.
     
  10. rikules
    Offline

    rikules fighting thugs and cons

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Messages:
    1,866
    Thanks Received:
    305
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +305
    I don't know if global warming is real or not...

    I do know that the conservative method for determining whether global warming is real or not is to simply mock the whole global warming concept without ANY real scientific testing what-so-ever....

    is that really a better method?

    I mean..."I hate liberals so therefore global warming is NOT real"
    seems a bit ridiculous

    and a method NOT to be trusted
     

Share This Page